Fowler Raymond, Pepe Paul E
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas Metropolitan Biotel (EMS) System, Emergency Medicine, MC 8579, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390-8579, USA.
Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2002 Nov;20(4):953-74. doi: 10.1016/s0733-8627(02)00038-x.
Recent research efforts have demonstrated that many longstanding practices for the prehospital resuscitation of trauma patients may be inappropriate under certain circumstances. For example, traditional practices, such as application of anti-shock garments and i.v. fluid administration to raise blood pressure, may even be detrimental in certain patients with uncontrolled bleeding, particularly those with penetrating injuries. ETI, although potentially capable of transiently prolonging a patient's ability to tolerate circulatory arrest, may also be harmful if overzealous PPV further compromises cardiac output, particularly in those patients with severe hemodynamic instability. In addition, if these procedures delay patient transport, any benefit that they may offer could be outweighed by the delay in definitive care. Although traditionally taught to "hyperventilate" the patient with severe head injury, current recommendations are to avoid this tactic unless there is evidence of herniation. Even time-honored traditions, such as universal spinal precautions and CPR during circulatory arrest, are being scrutinized [2,134]. Further prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to better define the role of many overlapping therapies in prehospital trauma care. Such research must specifically address and stratify the different mechanisms of injury, anatomic areas involved, and the physiologic staging of the injury. Furthermore, the efficacy of a single intervention may be masked by a confounding variable [5]. For example, a trial of an effective new HBOC in moribund patients that indicates no advantage in the study results may have been confounded by overzealous PPV, which may have led to suboptimal outcomes. It is hoped that, in the future, EMS physicians will be able to not only better discriminate in their management of patients with major trauma but also improve outcomes as a result.
近期的研究表明,许多长期以来用于创伤患者院前复苏的做法在某些情况下可能并不合适。例如,传统做法,如应用抗休克衣和静脉输液以提高血压,在某些出血未得到控制的患者中,尤其是那些穿透性损伤的患者中,甚至可能有害。气管插管,尽管有可能暂时延长患者耐受循环骤停的能力,但如果过度积极的正压通气进一步损害心输出量,尤其是在那些严重血流动力学不稳定的患者中,也可能有害。此外,如果这些操作延迟了患者转运,那么它们可能带来的任何益处都可能被确定性治疗的延迟所抵消。尽管传统上教导对严重颅脑损伤患者进行“过度通气”,但目前的建议是除非有脑疝的证据,否则应避免这种策略。甚至一些由来已久的传统做法,如普遍的脊柱固定预防措施和循环骤停时的心肺复苏,也在受到审视。需要进一步的前瞻性随机临床试验来更好地界定许多重叠疗法在院前创伤护理中的作用。此类研究必须具体针对并分层考虑不同的损伤机制、受累的解剖区域以及损伤的生理分期。此外,单一干预措施的疗效可能会被一个混杂变量所掩盖。例如,在濒死患者中对一种有效的新型血红蛋白氧载体进行的试验,如果研究结果显示没有优势,可能是被过度积极的正压通气所混淆,这可能导致了次优的结果。希望在未来,急救医疗服务医生不仅能够在对严重创伤患者的管理中做出更好的区分,而且还能因此改善治疗结果。