INFLUENCE OF EARLY OPERATIVE TREATMENT AND INTENSIVE CARE UNIT COURSE ON SECONDARY BRAIN DAMAGE OF SEVERELY HEAD INJURED PATIENTS

Shock ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
U. Lehmann ◽  
H. C. Pape ◽  
M. Winnyl ◽  
S. Zech ◽  
M. Lorenz
2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Narendra Vaidya ◽  
L.V. Pillai ◽  
A. D. Khade ◽  
Saiffuddin Hussainy

2006 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
George C. Velmahos ◽  
Carlos V. Brown ◽  
Demetrios Demetriades

Venous duplex scan (VDS) has been used for interim bedside diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in severely injured patients deemed to be at risk if transported out of the intensive care unit. In combination with the level of clinical suspicion for PE, VDS helps select patients for temporary treatment until definitive diagnosis is made. We evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of VDS in critically injured patients with a high level of clinical suspicion for PE. We performed a prospective observational cohort study at the surgical intensive care unit of an academic level 1 trauma center. Patients were 59 critically injured patients suspected to have PE over a 30-month period. The level of clinical suspicion for PE was classified as low or high according to preset criteria. Interventions were VDS and a PE outcome test (conventional or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography). The sensitivity and specificity of VDS to detect PE in all patients and in patients with high level of clinical suspicion was calculated against the results of the outcome test. PE was diagnosed in 21 patients (35.5%). The sensitivity and specificity of VDS was 33 per cent and 89 per cent, respectively. Among the 28 patients who had a high level of clinical suspicion for PE, the sensitivity of VDS was 23 per cent and the specificity 93 per cent. In this latter population, 1 of the 4 (25%) positive VDS was of a patient without PE and 10 of the 24 (42%) negative VDS were of patients who had PE. VDS does not accurately predict PE in severely injured patients, even in the presence of a high level of clinical suspicion.


2007 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-191
Author(s):  
Luke Y. Shen ◽  
Stephen D. Helmer ◽  
Jennifer Huang ◽  
Gerayu Niyakorn ◽  
R. Stephen Smith

We assessed whether a trauma service model with an emphasis on continuity of care by using “shift work” will improve trauma outcomes and cost. This was a case-control cohort study that took place at a university-affiliated Level I trauma center. All patients (n = 4283) evaluated for traumatic injuries between May 1, 2002 and April 30, 2004 were included. During Period I (May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003), a rotating off-service team provided initial management between 5:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The “day team” provided all other care and was responsible for continuity of care. In Period II (May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004), a dedicated trauma service consisting of two resident teams evaluated all injured patients. Variables included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation requirements, hospital mortality, and hospital care costs. Demographics and injury mechanism for both periods were similar, but Injury Severity Score (ISS) in Period II was greater (ISS, 8.2% vs 7.2%, P < 0.0001; ISS > 15, 18.5% vs 15.4%). In the more severely injured (ISS > 15), patients in Period II had shorter hospital LOS (8.6 vs 9.7 days, P = 0.98), a shorter ICU LOS (5.5 vs 7.7 days, P = 0.039), shorter mechanical ventilator requirements (5.5 vs 7.7 days, P = 0.32), improved hospital mortality rate (19.9% vs 26.8%, P = 0.029), and decreased hospital costs ($19,146 vs $21,274, P = 0.36). On multivariate analysis, factors affecting mortality and LOS included age, initial vital signs, injury type, and ISS. Overall, the two trauma service models resulted in similar outcomes. Although multivariate analysis revealed that treatment period did not affect mortality, our study revealed improved patient survival and reduction in LOS and cost for the severely injured in Period II.


2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1555-1562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nino Stocchetti ◽  
Sandra Rossi ◽  
Elisa Zanier ◽  
Angelo Colombo ◽  
Luigi Beretta ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
HE Harding-Goldson ◽  
IW Crandon ◽  
AH McDonald ◽  
R Augier ◽  
D Fearon-Boothe ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Michael W. deBoisblanc ◽  
Robert K. Goldman ◽  
John C. Mayberry ◽  
Dawn M. Brand ◽  
Patrick D. Pangburn ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-26
Author(s):  
Vesna Pajtic ◽  
Dunja Mihajlovic ◽  
Vladimir Vrsajkov ◽  
Aleksandar Gluhovic ◽  
Slavko Lovrencic

Impact of prehospital treatment of traumatized patients on treatment outcome in intensive care unit at Emergency center Clinical center of Vojvodina-one year experience Introduction: Trauma is the leading cause of death in 1-44 years old population. Recommendations of prehospital treatment of injured patients rely on the speed of response and transport to referent trauma center, where the patient will be adequately treated. Aim: The aim of our study was to investigate the impact of prehospital treatment and characteristics of patients before admission of patients to Emergency center-Clinical center of Vojvodina on survival of these patients in intensive care unit of Emergency center in order to improve the treatment and outcome of these patients. Material and methods: 209 patients who were treated in intensive care unit after the initial resuscitation in Emergency center-Clinical center of Vojvodina were included in our study. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 software. Differences between groups of patients were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square test. Statistical significance (p) was set at a value of 0.05. Results; Patients with worse outcome were significantly older than patients who had good outcome (49.4?18.5 vs. 63?14.7, p<0.05). Patients with manifestations of hypovolemic shock, respiratory distress and with GCS=8 on admission to Emergency center also had significantly worse outcome. Patients who had been intubated before admission to Emergency center had significantly better outcome in comparison to patients who did not have secured airway (p<0.05). However the placement of venous accessin prehospital setting did not impact survival significantly. Patients who were initially treated in regional hospitals had venous access and airway placement significantly in higher percent than patients treated by emergency medical service. Conclusion: While there is no strong evidence to support the benefits of airway and venous access management in injured patients in prehospital setting, our results suggest that these interventions can be beneficial if the transport to referent trauma center is long and if they are completed by educated medical staff.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document