Hemodynamic collapse in multi-trauma patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses both a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for prehospital clinicians. Brain injury associated shock (BIAS), likely resulting from catecholamine storm, can cause both ventricular dysfunction and vasoplegia but may present clinically in a manner similar to hemorrhagic shock. Despite different treatment strategies, few studies exist describing this phenomenon in the early post-injury phase. This retrospective observational study aimed to describe the frequency of shock in isolated TBI in prehospital trauma patients and to compare their clinical characteristics to those patients with hemorrhagic shock and TBI without shock.

All prehospital trauma patients intubated by prehospital medical teams from New South Wales Ambulance Aeromedical Operations (NSWA-AO) with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 12 or less were investigated. Shock was defined as a pre-intubation systolic blood pressure under 90mmHg and the administration of blood products or vasopressors. Injuries were classified from in-hospital computed tomography (CT) reports. From this, three study groups were derived: BIAS, hemorrhagic shock, and isolated TBI without shock. Descriptive statistics were then produced for clinical and treatment variables.

Of 1,292 intubated patients, 423 had an initial GCS of 12 or less, 24 patients (5.7% of the original cohort) had shock with an isolated TBI, and 39 patients had hemorrhagic shock. The hemodynamic parameters were similar amongst these groups, including values of tachycardia, hypotension, and elevated shock index. Prehospital clinical interventions including blood transfusion and total fluids administered were also similar, suggesting they were indistinguishable to prehospital clinicians.

Hemodynamic compromise in the setting of isolated severe TBI is a rare clinical entity. Current prehospital physiological data available to clinicians do not allow for easy delineation between these patients from those with hemorrhagic shock.

Identifying patients at imminent risk of death is critical in the management of trauma patients. This study measures the vital sign thresholds associated with death among trauma patients.

This study included data from patients ≥15 years of age in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database. Patients with vital signs of zero were excluded. Documented prehospital and emergency department (ED) vital signs included systolic pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and calculated shock index (SI). The area under the receiver operator curves (AUROC) was used to assess the accuracy of these variables for predicting 24-hour survival. Optimal thresholds to predict mortality were identified using Youden’s Index, 90% specificity, and 90% sensitivity. Additional analyses examined patients 70+ years of age.

There were 1,439,221 subjects in the 2019-2020 datasets that met inclusion for this analysis with <0.1% (10,270) who died within 24 hours. The optimal threshold for prehospital systolic pressure was 110, pulse rate was 110, SI was 0.9, and respiratory rate was 15. The optimal threshold for the ED systolic was 112, pulse rate was 107, SI was 0.9, and respiratory rate was 21. Among the elderly sub-analysis, the optimal threshold for prehospital systolic was 116, pulse rate was 100, SI was 0.8, and respiratory rate was 21. The optimal threshold for ED systolic was 121, pulse rate was 95, SI was 0.8, and respiratory rate was 21.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and SI offered the best predictor of mortality among trauma patients. The SBP values predictive of mortality were significantly higher than the traditional 90mmHg threshold. This dataset highlights the need for better methods to guide resuscitation as initial vital signs have limited accuracy in predicting subsequent mortality.

The utility and efficacy of bolus dose vasopressors in hemodynamically unstable patients is well-established in the fields of general anesthesia and obstetrics. However, in the prehospital setting, minimal evidence for bolus dose vasopressor use exists and is primarily limited to critical care transport use. Hypotensive episodes, whether traumatic, peri-intubation-related, or septic, increase patient mortality. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and adverse events associated with prehospital bolus dose epinephrine use in non-cardiac arrest, hypotensive patients treated by a single, high-volume, ground-based Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agency.

This is a retrospective, observational study of all non-cardiac arrest EMS patients treated for hypotension using bolus dose epinephrine from September 12, 2018 through September 12, 2019. Inclusion criteria for treatment with bolus dose epinephrine required a systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurement <90mmHg. A dose of 20mcg every two minutes, as needed, was allowed per protocol. The primary data source was the EMS electronic medical record.

Forty-two patients were treated under the protocol with a median (IQR) initial SBP immediately prior to treatment of 78mmHg (65-86) and a median (IQR) initial mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 58mmHg (50-66). The post-bolus SBP and MAP increased to 93mmHg (75-111) and 69mmHg (59-83), respectively. The two most common patient presentations requiring protocol use were altered mental status (55%) and respiratory failure (31%). Over one-half of the patients treated required both advanced airway management (62%) and multiple bolus doses of vasopressor support (55%). A single episode of transient severe hypertension (SBP>180mmHg) occurred, but there were no episodes of unstable tachyarrhythmia or cardiac arrest while en route or upon arrival to the receiving hospitals.

These preliminary data suggest that the administration of bolus dose epinephrine may be effective at rapidly augmenting hypotension in the prehospital setting with a minimal incidence of adverse events. Paramedic use of bolus dose epinephrine successfully increased SBP and MAP without clinically significant side effects. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further investigate the effects of prehospital bolus dose epinephrine on patient morbidity and mortality.

The rate of failing to apply a tourniquet remains high.

The study objective was to examine whether early advanced training under conditions that approximate combat conditions and provide stress inoculation improve competency, compared to the current educational program of non-medical personnel.

This was a randomized controlled trial. Male recruits of the armored corps were included in the study. During Combat Lifesaver training, recruits apply The Tourniquet 12 times. This educational program was used as the control group. The combat stress inoculation (CSI) group also included 12 tourniquet applications, albeit some of them in combat conditions such as low light and physical exertion. Three parameters defined success, and these parameters were measured by The Simulator: (1) applied pressure ≥ 200mmHg; (2) time to stop bleeding ≤ 60 seconds; and (3) placement up to 7.5cm above the amputation.

Out of the participants, 138 were assigned to the control group and 167 were assigned to the CSI group. The overall failure rate was 80.33% (81.90% in the control group versus 79.00% in the CSI group; P value = .565; 95% confidence interval, 0.677 to 2.122). Differences in pressure, time to stop bleeding, or placement were not significant (95% confidence intervals, −17.283 to 23.404, −1.792 to 6.105, and 0.932 to 2.387, respectively). Tourniquet placement was incorrect in most of the applications (62.30%).

This study found high rates of failure in tourniquet application immediately after successful completion of tourniquet training. These rates did not improve with tourniquet training, including CSI. The results may indicate that better tourniquet training methods should be pursued.

Tsur, AM, Binyamin, Y, Koren, L, Ohayon, S, Thompson; P, Glassberg, E. High tourniquet failure rates among non-medical personnel do not improve with tourniquet training, including combat stress inoculation: a randomized controlled trial. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(3):282–287.