Pitfalls in the care of the injured patient

Abstract Introduction Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has been shown to be a useful adjunct in assessment of various shock states and utilized to guide resuscitative and post-resuscitation de-escalation efforts. POCUS use for guiding resuscitation in burn injured patient has not be described. Objectives characterize the use of bedside ultrasound examinations performed by advance practice providers and treating physicians in a regional burn intensive care unit Methods Daily beside ultrasound examinations were performed utilizing a bedside ultrasound device by an advanced practice provider prior to rounds POCUS examinations consist of: Ultrasound images were archived to a centralized image repository and reviewed daily during multi-disciplinary rounds. Ultrasonographic volume assessment compared to clinical volume assessment made during daily multidisciplinary rounds. Results 100 examinations were performed of those 32 were within the initial 72 hour window: Conclusions Our results demonstrate that bedside ultrasound aides in guidance of both resuscitative and post-resuscitative efforts. We identified a cohort of patients who appeared hypervolemic clinically but US findings supported hypovolemia, we refer to as pseudohypervolemia US volume assessment provides information that changes management. We believe point of care ultrasound is a viable tool in preventing over-resuscitation as well as to guide post-resuscitative diuresis.

Download Full-text

Ambulance deceleration causes increased intra cranial pressure in supine position: a prospective observational prove of principle study

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1186/s13049-021-00904-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 29 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Iscander M. Maissan ◽

Boris Vlottes ◽

Sanne Hoeks ◽

Jan Bosch ◽

Robert Jan Stolker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Supine Position ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Injured Patient ◽

Upright Position ◽

Fluid Shift ◽

Nerve Sheath ◽

Head Injured ◽

Acceleration And Deceleration ◽

Pressure Changes ◽

Intra Cranial Pressure

Abstract Background Ambulance drivers in the Netherlands are trained to drive as fluent as possible when transporting a head injured patient to the hospital. Acceleration and deceleration have the potential to create pressure changes in the head that may worsen outcome. Although the idea of fluid shift during braking causing intra cranial pressure (ICP) to rise is widely accepted, it lacks any scientific evidence. In this study we evaluated the effects of driving and deceleration during ambulance transportation on the intra cranial pressure in supine position and 30° upright position. Methods Participants were placed on the ambulance gurney in supine position. During driving and braking the optical nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) was measured with ultrasound. Because cerebro spinal fluid percolates in the optical nerve sheath when ICP rises, the diameter of this sheath will distend if ICP rises during braking of the ambulance. The same measurements were taken with the headrest in 30° upright position. Results Mean ONSD in 20 subjects in supine position increased from 4.80 (IQR 4.80–5.00) mm during normal transportation to 6.00 (IQR 5.75–6.40) mm (p < 0.001) during braking. ONSD’s increased in all subjects in supine position. After raising the headrest of the gurney 30° mean ONSD increased from 4.80 (IQR 4.67–5.02) mm during normal transportation to 4.90 (IQR 4.80–5.02) mm (p = 0.022) during braking. In 15 subjects (75%) there was no change in ONSD at all. Conclusions ONSD and thereby ICP increases during deceleration of a transporting vehicle in participants in supine position. Raising the headrest of the gurney to 30 degrees reduces the effect of breaking on ICP.

Download Full-text

Prehospital shock index outperforms hypotension alone in predicting significant injury in trauma patients

Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open ◽

10.1136/tsaco-2021-000712 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. e000712

Author(s):

Tareq Kheirbek ◽

Thomas J Martin ◽

Jessica Cao ◽

Benjamin M Hall ◽

Stephanie Lueckel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Missing Values ◽

Injured Patient ◽

Injury Pattern ◽

Long Bone ◽

Shock Index ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Emergent Operation ◽

Serious Injury ◽

Significant Injury

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient recommends using hypotension, defined as systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg, as an indicator of a full team trauma activation. We hypothesized that an elevated shock index (SI) predicts significant traumatic injuries better than hypotension alone.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study analyzing full team trauma activations between February 2018 and January 2020, excluding transfers and those who had missing values for prehospital blood pressure or heart rate. We reviewed patients’ demographics, prehospital and emergency department vitals, injury pattern, need for operation, and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was rate of significant injury defined as identified injured liver, spleen, or kidney, pelvis fracture, long bone fracture, significant extremity soft tissue damage, hemothorax, or pneumothorax.ResultsAmong 544 patients, 82 (15.1%) had prehospital hypotension and 492 had normal blood pressure. Of the patients with prehospital hypotension, 34 (41.5%) had a significant injury. There was no difference in age, gender, medical history, or injury pattern between the two groups. There was no difference between the two groups in rate of serious injury (41.5% vs. 46.1%, NS), need for emergent operation (31.7% vs. 28.1%, NS) or death (20.7% vs. 18.8%, NS). On the other hand, SI ≥1 was associated with increased rate of serious injury (54.6% vs. 43.4%, p=0.04). On a logistic regression analysis, prehospital hypotension was not associated with significant injury or need for emergent operation (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33 and OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.25, respectively). SI ≥1 was associated with both increased odds of significant injury and need for emergent operation (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.44 and OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.66).DiscussionSI was a better indicator and could replace hypotension to better categorize and triage patients in need of higher level of care.Level of evidencePrognostic and epidemiologic, level III.

Download Full-text