Background Fluid resuscitation may be detrimental when given before bleeding is controlled in patients with trauma. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of delaying fluid resuscitation until the time of operative intervention in hypotensive patients with penetrating injuries to the torso. Methods We conducted a prospective trial comparing immediate and delayed fluid resuscitation in 598 adults with penetrating torso injuries who presented with a prehospital systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mm Hg. The study setting was a city with a single centralized system of prehospital emergency care and a single receiving facility for patients with major trauma. Patients assigned to the immediate-resuscitation group received standard fluid resuscitation before they reached the hospital and in the trauma center, and those assigned to the delayed-resuscitation group received intravenous cannulation but no fluid resuscitation until they reached the operating room. Results Among the 289 patients who received...

http://www.nimbot.com/Med/Articles/Journal%20Clubs/2007-01/Immediate%20vs%20Delayed%20Fluid%20Resuscitation%20for%20Hypotensive%20Pts%20with%20Penet%20Torso%20Injuries/Article.pdf

Immediate versus delayed fluid resuscitation for hypotensive patients with penetrating torso injuries.

Objectives : The Injury Severity Score (ISS) has served as the standard summary measure of anatomic injury for more than 20 years. Nevertheless, the ISS has an idiosyncrasy that both impairs its predictive power and complicates its calculation. We present here a simple modification of the ISS called the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), which significantly outperforms the venerable but dated ISS as a predictor of mortality. Design: Retrospective calculation of NISS and comparison of NISS with prospectively calculated ISS. Materials and Methods: The NISS is defined as the sum of the squares of the Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of each of a patient's three most severe Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries regardless of the body region in which they occur. NISS values were calculated for every patient in two large independent data sets: 3,136 patients treated during a 4-year period at the American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 3,449 patients treated during a 4-year period at the American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma center at the Emanuel Hospital in Portland, Oregon. The power of NISS to predict mortality was then compared with previously calculated ISS values for the same patients in each of the two data sets. Measurements and Main Results: We find that NISS is not only simple to calculate but more predictive of survival as well (Albuquerque: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) ISS = 0.869, ROC NISS = 0.896, p < 0.001; Portland: ROC ISS = 0.896, ROC NISS = 0.907, p < 0.004). Moreover, NISS provides a better fit throughout its entire range of prediction (Hosmer Lemeshow statistic for Albuquerque ISS = 29.12, NISS = 8.88; Hosmer Lemeshow statistic for Portland ISS = 83.48, NISS = 19.86). Conclusion: NISS should replace ISS as the standard summary measure of human trauma.

A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring

https://heeoe.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/130220p_whole_body_ct.pdf

Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

Guidelines for field triage of injured patients recommendations of the national expert panel on field triage.

Objectives To characterize contemporary use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in combat injury and to assess the effect of its administration on total blood product use, thromboembolic complications, and mortality. Design Retrospective observational study comparing TXA administration with no TXA in patients receiving at least 1 unit of packed red blood cells. A subgroup of patients receiving massive transfusion (≥10 units of packed red blood cells) was also examined. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify parameters associated with survival. Kaplan-Meier life tables were used to report survival. Setting A Role 3 Echelon surgical hospital in southern Afghanistan. Patients A total of 896 consecutive admissions with combat injury, of which 293 received TXA, were identified from prospectively collected UK and US trauma registries. Main Outcome Measures Mortality at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 30 days as well as the influence of TXA administration on postoperative coagulopathy and the rate of thromboembolic complications. Results The TXA group had lower unadjusted mortality than the no-TXA group (17.4% vs 23.9%, respectively; P = .03) despite being more severely injured (mean [SD] Injury Severity Score, 25.2 [16.6] vs 22.5 [18.5], respectively; P  Conclusions The use of TXA with blood component–based resuscitation following combat injury results in improved measures of coagulopathy and survival, a benefit that is most prominent in patients requiring massive transfusion. Treatment with TXA should be implemented into clinical practice as part of a resuscitation strategy following severe wartime injury and hemorrhage.

/pdf/military-application-of-tranexamic-acid-in-trauma-emergency-4jm6ssiljw.pdf

Military Application of Tranexamic Acid in Trauma Emergency Resuscitation (MATTERs) Study.

The Trauma Score (TS) has been revised. The revision includes Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and respiratory rate (RR) and excludes capillary refill and respiratory expansion, which were difficult to assess in the field. Two versions of the revised score have been developed, one for triage (T-RTS) and another for use in outcome evaluations and to control for injury severity (RTS). T-RTS, the sum of coded values of GCS, SBP, and RR, demonstrated increased sensitivity and some loss in specificity when compared with a triage criterion based on TS and GCS values. T-RTS correctly identified more than 97% of nonsurvivors as requiring trauma center care. The T-RTS triage criterion does not require summing of the coded values and is more easily implemented than the TS criterion. RTS is a weighted sum of coded variable values. The RTS demonstrated substantially improved reliability in outcome predictions compared to the TS. The RTS also yielded more accurate outcome predictions for patients with serious head injuries than the TS.

A revision of the Trauma Score.

The Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS) is a retrospective descriptive study of injury severity and outcome coordinated through the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma. From 1982 through 1987, 139 North American hospitals submitted demographic, etiologic, injury severity, and outcome data for 80,544 trauma patients. Motor vehicle related injuries were most frequent (34.7%). Twenty-one per cent of patients had penetrating injuries. The overall mortality rate was 9.0%. The mortality rate for direct admissions was strongly related to the presence of serious head injury, 5.0% and 40.0%, when head injuries were less than or equal to AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) 3 or greater than or equal to AIS 4, respectively. Survival probability norms use the Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, patient age, and injury mechanism. Patients with unexpected outcomes were identified and statistical comparisons of actual and expected numbers of survivors made for each institution. Results provide a description of injury and outcome and support evaluation and quality assurance activities.

Maureen E. Flanagan

Papers

A revision of the Trauma Score.

The Major Trauma Outcome Study: establishing national norms for trauma care.

The effect of autopsy on injury severity and survival probability calculations.

Admission Surgery for the Multiple Trauma Patient

Perioperative Nursing Care of the Multiple Trauma Patient