Ronny Ben-Avi MD, Alex Sorkin MD, Roy Nadler MD, Avishai M. Tsur MD, Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Jacob Chen MD MHA, and Avi Benov MD MHA; and Israel Trauma Group
Background: Chest trauma is among the most common types of trauma, corresponding to 10% of trauma patients admitted to hospitals. In the military setting, thoracic trauma was reported as a significant cause of death. With well-timed treatment, chest trauma is regarded as survivable. Emergency thoracotomy (ET) is considered when the patient with trauma to the chest needs immediate resuscitation. Survival rate is reported as low as 1% in some reports and 20% in others. The survival rate depends on injury mechanism, protocols for intervention, and other decompressive procedures.
Objectives: To determine parameters that may impact survival of ET.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare prehospital and in-hospital data regarding ET in the emergency department (ED) versus the operating room (OR).
Results: Between 2009 and 2017, 6532 casualties presented to the ED; 1125 with trauma to the chest. Fifty-four of those with chest trauma underwent ET in the hospital (4.8%), 22 (41%) in the ED, and 32 (59%) in the OR. The overall mortality of the ET subgroup was 48%. With regard to thoracotomies, 19/22 of patients (86%) who underwent ET in the ED died compared to 2/28 in the OR (13%).
Conclusions: Utilizing ET after chest trauma with appropriate clinical indications, well-trained personnel, and prompt transportation poses a significant challenge, but may be associated with better survival than that reported previously with military casualties. Adoption of indications and timed allocation to the OR may improve outcomes with chest trauma casualties.
Helit Nakar MD, Alex Sorkin MD, Roy Nadler MD, Avishai M. Tsur MD, Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Guy Avital MD, Elon Glassberg MD MHA MBA, Tarif Bader MD MHA MA, Lidar Fridrich MD, Jacob Chen MD MHA MSc, and Avi Benov MD MHA
Background: Pain control in trauma is an integral part of treatment in combat casualty care. More soldiers injured on the battlefield need analgesics for pain than life-saving interventions (LSIs). Early treatment of pain improves outcomes after injury, while inadequate treatment leads to higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Objective: To describe the experience of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Medical Corps with prehospital use of analgesia.
Methods: All cases documented in the IDF-Trauma Registry between January 1997 and December 2019 were examined. Data collection included analgesia administered, mechanism of injury, wound distribution, and life-saving interventions performed.
Results: Of 16,117 patients, 1807 (11.2%) had at least one documented analgesia. Demographics included 91.2% male; median age 21 years. Leading mechanism of injury was penetrating (52.9%). Of injured body regions reported, 46.2% were lower extremity wounds. Most common types of analgesics were morphine (57.2%) and fentanyl (27%). Over the two decades of the study period, types of analgesics given by providers at point of injury (POI) had changed. Fentanyl was introduced in 2013, and by 2019 was given to 39% of patients. Another change was an increase of casualties receiving analgesia from 5–10% until 2010 to 34% by 2019. A total of 824 LSIs were performed on 556 patients (30.8%) receiving analgesia and no adverse events were found in any of the casualties.
Conclusions: Most casualties at POI did not receive any analgesics. The most common analgesics administered were opioids. Over time analgesic administration has gained acceptance and become more commonplace on the battlefield.
Mor Rittblat MD, Lilach Gavish PhD, Avishai M. Tsur MD MHA, Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Avi Benov MD MHA, and Amir Shlaifer MD
Background: Freeze dried plasma (FDP) is a commonly used replacement fluid in the prehospital setting when blood products are unavailable. It is normally administered via a peripheral intravenous (PIV) line. However, in severe casualties, when establishing a PIV is difficult, administration via intraosseous vascular access is a practical alternative, particularly under field conditions.
Objectives: To evaluate the indications and success rate of intraosseous administration of FDP in casualties treated by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from the IDF-Trauma Registry was conducted. It included all casualties treated with FDP via intraosseous from 2013 to 2019 with additional data on the technical aspects of deployment collected from the caregivers of each case.
Results: Of 7223 casualties treated during the study period, intravascular access was attempted in 1744; intraosseous in 87 of those. FDP via intraosseous was attempted in 15 (0.86% of all casualties requiring intravascular access). The complication rate was 73% (11/15 of casualties). Complications were more frequent when the event included multiple casualties or when the injury included multiple organs. Of the 11 failed attempts, 5 were reported as due to slow flow of the FDP through the intraosseous apparatus. Complications in the remaining six were associated with deployment of the intraosseous device.
Conclusions: Administration of FDP via intraosseous access in the field requires a high skill level.
Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Dotan Yaari MD MHA, Guy Avital MD, Or Bainhoren MD, and Avi Benov MD MHA
Background: Pain management is fundamental in the treatment of a trauma casualty. Adequate pain management is associated with decreased long-term morbidity and chronic pain. Nonetheless, pain is frequently not documented nor adequately treated in the prehospital setting, a phenomenon described as oligoanalgesia. Gender bias has been suggested as a risk factor for oligoanalgesia.
Objectives: To examine the association between casualty gender and pain management in the prehospital trauma setting.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the Israel Defense Forces Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2020. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between casualty gender and pain management. For adult patients for whom gender was known, pain scores were documented.
Results: A total of 1044 casualties were included in the study; 894 (85.6%) were male. Females and males differed in several demographic and injury characteristics, including age in years (mean 36 vs. 27.6, P value < 0.001) and injury mechanism (16%% vs. 34.5% penetrating injury, P value < 0.001). Female casualties were less likely to be treated for pain (odds ratio [OR] 0.708, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.5–1, P = 0.05). However, after adjustment for various factors, including pain severity, this association was insignificant (OR 0.748, 95%CI 0.46–1.23, P = 0.25).
Conclusions: In this prehospital study, gender bias in pain management was not apparent. As women’s role on the battlefield continues to increase, further studies regarding the role of
David Segal MD MPH, Nitzan Shakarchy-Kaminsky MD MSc, Yair Zloof MD, Tomer Talmy MD, Galina Shapiro MD PHD, Irina Radomislensky BSc, Avishai M. Tsur MD MHA, Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Erez Karp MD MHA, and Avi Benov MD MHA; Israel Trauma Group
Background: Medical organizations worldwide aim for equity and diversity in the medical profession to improve care quality. Data on whether the caregiver gender affects outcomes in the prehospital setting are essential but scarce compared to available in-hospital studies.
Objective: To analyze the rates of missed injuries in the prehospital setting and determine whether these rates were associated with the gender of the on-field physician or paramedic.
Methods: A retrospective record review was conducted, which included trauma records documented in two trauma registries, the prehospital Israel Defense Forces-Trauma Registry (IDF-TR), and the in-hospital Israeli National Trauma Registry (INTR). Missed injuries were defined as injuries documented in the INTR but not in the IDF-TR. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the association between provider’s gender and missed injuries.
Results: Of 490 casualties, 369 (75.3%) were treated by teams that included only male paramedics or physicians. In 386 (78.8%) cases, a physician was a part of the prehospital team. In all, 94 (19.2%) casualties sustained injuries that were missed by the prehospital medical team. Missed injuries were not associated with the gender of the paramedic or physician (odds ratio 1.242, 95% confidence interval 0.69–2.193).
Conclusions: No association was found between the gender of the medical provider in the prehospital setting and the rate of missed injuries. These results should encourage prehospital emergency medical systems to aim for a balanced and diverse caregiver population.
Alex Sorkin MD, Avishai M. Tsur MD MHA, Roy Nadler MD, Ariel Hirschhorn MD, Ezri Tarazi BDes, Jacob Chen MD MHA, Noam Fink MD, Guy Avital MD, Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, and Avi Benov MD MHA
Background: The Israeli Defense Forces-Medical Corps (IDF-MC) focuses on reducing preventable death by improving prehospital trauma care. High quality documentation of care can serve casualty care and to improve future care. Currently, paper casualty cards are used for documentation. Incomplete data acquisition and inadequate data handover are common. To resolve these deficits, the IDF-MC launched the BladeShield 101 project.
Objectives: To assess the quality of casualty care data acquired by comparing standard paper casualty cards with the BladeShield 101.
Methods: The BladeShield 101 system consists of three components: a patient unit that records vital signs and medical care provided, a medical sensor that transmits to the patient unit, and a ruggedized mobile device that allows providers to access and document information. We compared all trauma registries of casualties treated between September 2019 and June 2020.
Results: The system was applied during the study period on 24 patients. All data were transferred to the military trauma registry within one day, compared to 72% (141/194) with a paper casualty card (P < 0.01). Information regarding treatment time was available in 100% vs. 43% (P < 0.01) of cases and 98% vs. 67% (P < 0.01) of treatments provided were documented comparing BladeShield 101 with paper cards, respectively.
Conclusions: Using an autonomous system to record, view, deliver, and store casualty information may resolve most current information flow deficits. This solution will ultimately significantly improve individual patient care and systematic learning and development processes.