Retrospective Matched Cohort Comparison of Prehospital Finger Thoracostomy and Needle Thoracostomy Performed by Ground Emergency Medical Services

A. Ciaraglia, Alison Smith, Benjamin Axtman, Brian Eastridge, Ronald Stewart, Susannah Nicholson, Donald Jenkins
{"title":"Retrospective Matched Cohort Comparison of Prehospital Finger Thoracostomy and Needle Thoracostomy Performed by Ground Emergency Medical Services","authors":"A. Ciaraglia, Alison Smith, Benjamin Axtman, Brian Eastridge, Ronald Stewart, Susannah Nicholson, Donald Jenkins","doi":"10.56068/xigr4635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Tension pneumothorax related to chest trauma is a rapidly lethal condition that requires immediate treatment, often prior to arrival at definitive care. Recent concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of needle thoracostomy (NT) have led to alternatives. Finger thoracostomy (FT) is a potential life-saving treatment performed by prehospital providers as an alternative to NT. We hypothesize that FT has improved rates of prehospital thoracic decompression and is a safe alternative to NT. \nMaterials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult trauma patients presenting to a Level 1 trauma center who sustained chest trauma. A matched cohort of patients who underwent prehospital FT was compared to patients who underwent prehospital NT for thoracic decompression. Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Chi-Squared Analyses were performed for comparison of prehospital and in-hospital outcome variables. \nResults: 34 patients were compared, of which 15 underwent prehospital FT and 19 underwent prehospital needle thoracostomy NT. Groups were well matched in terms of demographics and injury characteristics. No difference in transport times were observed. All 15 patients in the FT group sustained cardiac arrest prior to arrival with 20% achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), while 6/19 NT patients arrived in cardiac arrest, with 66.7% achieving ROSC (p = 0.04). The rate of successful intrathoracic decompression was higher in the FT group (93.3% vs 47.4%, p<0.001). The NT group had a higher rate of chest tube placement (p=0.005). In-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups (p=0.213). \nConclusions: FT is a viable alternative to NT for emergent thoracic decompression. The higher success rate of intrathoracic decompression supports the use of FT as an alternative to NT for prehospital tension pneumothorax, although future studies are needed establish superiority and further evaluate mortality and in-hospital outcomes.","PeriodicalId":73465,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paramedicine","volume":"641 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56068/xigr4635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Tension pneumothorax related to chest trauma is a rapidly lethal condition that requires immediate treatment, often prior to arrival at definitive care. Recent concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of needle thoracostomy (NT) have led to alternatives. Finger thoracostomy (FT) is a potential life-saving treatment performed by prehospital providers as an alternative to NT. We hypothesize that FT has improved rates of prehospital thoracic decompression and is a safe alternative to NT. Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult trauma patients presenting to a Level 1 trauma center who sustained chest trauma. A matched cohort of patients who underwent prehospital FT was compared to patients who underwent prehospital NT for thoracic decompression. Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Chi-Squared Analyses were performed for comparison of prehospital and in-hospital outcome variables. Results: 34 patients were compared, of which 15 underwent prehospital FT and 19 underwent prehospital needle thoracostomy NT. Groups were well matched in terms of demographics and injury characteristics. No difference in transport times were observed. All 15 patients in the FT group sustained cardiac arrest prior to arrival with 20% achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), while 6/19 NT patients arrived in cardiac arrest, with 66.7% achieving ROSC (p = 0.04). The rate of successful intrathoracic decompression was higher in the FT group (93.3% vs 47.4%, p<0.001). The NT group had a higher rate of chest tube placement (p=0.005). In-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups (p=0.213). Conclusions: FT is a viable alternative to NT for emergent thoracic decompression. The higher success rate of intrathoracic decompression supports the use of FT as an alternative to NT for prehospital tension pneumothorax, although future studies are needed establish superiority and further evaluate mortality and in-hospital outcomes.
院前指式胸腔造口术与地面急救医疗服务实施的针式胸腔造口术的回顾性匹配队列比较
导言:与胸部创伤有关的张力性气胸是一种迅速致命的疾病,需要立即治疗,通常是在到达最终治疗机构之前。最近,人们对针刺胸腔造口术(NT)的安全性和有效性产生了担忧,因此出现了替代方法。指套胸腔造口术(FT)是院前医疗服务提供者实施的一种潜在的救生治疗方法,可替代针刺胸腔造口术。我们假设 FT 可提高院前胸廓减压率,并且是 NT 的安全替代方案。材料和方法:回顾性队列研究,研究对象为前往一级创伤中心就诊的连续胸部创伤成人患者。将接受院前 FT 的患者与接受院前 NT 进行胸廓减压的患者进行匹配队列比较。院前和院内结果变量的比较采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验和 Chi-Squared 分析。结果比较了 34 名患者,其中 15 人接受了院前 FT,19 人接受了院前针刺胸腔造口术 NT。两组在人口统计学和损伤特征方面完全匹配。转运时间无差异。FT 组的 15 名患者在到达前均出现心脏骤停,其中 20% 实现了自主循环 (ROSC),而 NT 组有 6/19 名患者在到达时心脏骤停,其中 66.7% 实现了自主循环 (ROSC)(p = 0.04)。FT 组胸腔内减压成功率更高(93.3% 对 47.4%,P<0.001)。NT 组的胸管置入率更高(P=0.005)。两组的院内死亡率无差异(P=0.213)。结论:在急诊胸腔减压术中,FT 是 NT 的可行替代方案。胸腔内减压的成功率较高,这支持使用 FT 替代 NT 治疗院前张力性气胸,但仍需今后的研究来确定其优越性,并进一步评估死亡率和院内预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信