A Comparison of Combat Casualty Outcomes after Prehospital Versus Military Treatment Facility Airway Management.

Steven G Schauer, Michael D April
{"title":"A Comparison of Combat Casualty Outcomes after Prehospital Versus Military Treatment Facility Airway Management.","authors":"Steven G Schauer,&nbsp;Michael D April","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of potentially survivable death on the battlefield. Previous studies demonstrate casualties undergoing airway interventions have worse outcomes when the procedure occurs in the prehospital setting versus the military treatment facility (MTF) setting. We compare outcomes between casualties undergoing airway management in these 2 settings using the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a secondary analysis of a previously described dataset from the DODTR. We included US military casualties with at least 24 hours on the ventilator. We compared casualties who underwent intubation in the prehospital setting versus hospital setting. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to adjust for available confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2,124 that met inclusion for this analysis-278 in the prehospital cohort and 1,846 in the MTF cohort. Median injury severity scores were higher in the prehospital cohort (25 versus 22, p is less than 0.001). The survival to discharge was lower in the prehospital cohort (80% versus 93%, p is less than 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression model, when adjusting for injury severity score, mechanism of injury, and first 24-hour blood products, the odds of survival were 0.34 (95% CI 0.23-0.50) for those intubated prehospital versus MTF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found worse survival for those with prehospital airway intervention versus those in the MTFsetting. These findings persisted after adjustment for measurable confounders. Our findings suggest prehospital-focused improvements in airway interventions are needed and/or robust methods for rapid evacuation to an MTF for airway intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":74148,"journal":{"name":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","volume":" Per 23-1/2/3","pages":"92-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Background: Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of potentially survivable death on the battlefield. Previous studies demonstrate casualties undergoing airway interventions have worse outcomes when the procedure occurs in the prehospital setting versus the military treatment facility (MTF) setting. We compare outcomes between casualties undergoing airway management in these 2 settings using the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR).

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a previously described dataset from the DODTR. We included US military casualties with at least 24 hours on the ventilator. We compared casualties who underwent intubation in the prehospital setting versus hospital setting. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to adjust for available confounders.

Results: There were 2,124 that met inclusion for this analysis-278 in the prehospital cohort and 1,846 in the MTF cohort. Median injury severity scores were higher in the prehospital cohort (25 versus 22, p is less than 0.001). The survival to discharge was lower in the prehospital cohort (80% versus 93%, p is less than 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression model, when adjusting for injury severity score, mechanism of injury, and first 24-hour blood products, the odds of survival were 0.34 (95% CI 0.23-0.50) for those intubated prehospital versus MTF.

Conclusions: We found worse survival for those with prehospital airway intervention versus those in the MTFsetting. These findings persisted after adjustment for measurable confounders. Our findings suggest prehospital-focused improvements in airway interventions are needed and/or robust methods for rapid evacuation to an MTF for airway intervention.

院前与军事治疗设施气道管理后战斗伤亡结果的比较
背景:气道阻塞是战场上潜在的第二大死亡原因。先前的研究表明,在院前进行气道干预比在军事治疗设施(MTF)进行干预的伤病员的预后更差。我们使用国防部创伤登记处(DODTR)比较这两种情况下接受气道管理的伤亡者的结果。方法:这是对先前描述的DODTR数据集的二次分析。我们纳入了使用呼吸机至少24小时的美军伤亡人员。我们比较了院前插管和住院插管的伤亡者。建立了多变量逻辑回归模型来调整可用的混杂因素。结果:有2124例患者符合本分析,其中院前队列278例,MTF队列1846例。院前队列的中位损伤严重程度评分较高(25比22,p < 0.001)。院前队列的出院生存率较低(80%对93%,p < 0.001)。在多变量logistic回归模型中,当调整损伤严重程度评分、损伤机制和第一个24小时血液制品时,院前插管组与MTF组的生存几率为0.34 (95% CI 0.23-0.50)。结论:我们发现院前气道干预组与mtf组相比生存率更差。在调整了可测量的混杂因素后,这些发现仍然存在。我们的研究结果表明,需要以院前为重点的气道干预改进和/或快速疏散到MTF进行气道干预的可靠方法。
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