O'Dochartaigh Domhnall, Douma Matthew, Alexiu Chris, Ryan Shell, MacKenzie Mark
1Alberta Health Services,Emergency,Edmonton Zone,Alberta,Canada.
3Alberta Health Services,Emergency Services,Royal Alexandra Hospital,Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Oct;32(5):536-540. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X1700646X. Epub 2017 May 3.
Introduction Prehospital ultrasound (PHUS) assessments by physicians and non-physicians are performed on medical and trauma patients with increasing frequency. Prehospital ultrasound has been shown to be of benefit by supporting interventions. Problem Which patients may benefit from PHUS has not been clearly identified.
A multi-variable logistic regression analysis was performed on a previously created retrospective dataset of five years of physician- and non-physician-performed ultrasound scans in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). For separate medical and trauma patient groups, the a-priori outcome assessed was patient characteristics associated with the outcome variable of "PHUS-supported intervention."
Both models were assessed (Likelihood Ratio, Score, and Wald) as a good fit. For medical patients, the characteristics of heart rate (HR) and shock index (SI) were found to be most significant for an intervention being supported by PHUS. An extremely low HR was found to be the most significant (OR=15.86 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-171.73]; P=.02). The higher the SI, the more likely that an intervention was supported by PHUS (SI 0.9 to<1.3: OR=9.15 [95% CI, 1.36-61.69]; P=.02; and SI 1.3+: OR=8.37 [95% CI, 0.69-101.66]; P=.09). For trauma patients, the characteristics of Prehospital Index (PHI) and SI were found to be most significant for PHUS support. The greatest effect was PHI, where increasing ORs were seen with increasing PHI (PHI 14-19: OR=13.36 [95% CI, 1.92-92.81]; P=.008; and PHI 20-24: OR=53.10 [95% CI, 4.83-583.86]; P=.001). Shock index was found to be similar, though, with lower impact and significance (SI 0.9 to<1.3: OR=9.11 [95% CI, 1.31-63.32]; P=.025; and SI 1.3+: OR=35.75 [95% CI, 2.51-509.81]; P=.008).
In a critical care HEMS, markers of higher patient acuity in both medical and trauma patients were associated with occurrences when an intervention was supported by PHUS. Prospective study with in-hospital follow-up is required to confirm these hypothesis-generating results. O'Dochartaigh D , Douma M , Alexiu C , Ryan S , MacKenzie M . Utilization criteria for prehospital ultrasound in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service: determining who might benefit. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):536-540.
引言 医生和非医生进行院前超声(PHUS)评估在医疗和创伤患者中的应用频率日益增加。院前超声已被证明通过辅助干预措施具有益处。问题 哪些患者可能从PHUS中获益尚未明确确定。
对加拿大一家重症监护直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)机构先前创建的包含五年医生和非医生进行的超声扫描回顾性数据集进行多变量逻辑回归分析。对于单独的医疗和创伤患者组,预先评估的结果是与“PHUS辅助干预”结果变量相关的患者特征。
两种模型(似然比、得分和 Wald 检验)均评估为拟合良好。对于医疗患者,发现心率(HR)和休克指数(SI)特征对于PHUS支持的干预最为显著。发现极低的心率最为显著(比值比[OR]=15.86[95%置信区间(CI),1.46 - 171.73];P = 0.02)。SI越高,PHUS支持干预的可能性越大(SI 0.9至<1.3:OR = 9.15[95%CI,1.36 - 61.69];P = 0.02;SI 1.3+:OR = 8.37[95%CI,0.69 - 101.66];P = 0.09)。对于创伤患者,院前指数(PHI)和SI特征对于PHUS支持最为显著。影响最大的是PHI,随着PHI增加,OR值升高(PHI 14 - 19:OR = 13.36[95%CI,1.92 - 92.81];P = 0.008;PHI 20 - 24:OR = 53.10[95%CI,4.83 - 583.86];P = 0.001)。不过,休克指数情况类似,但影响和显著性较低(SI 0.9至<1.3:OR = 9.11[95%CI,1.31 - 63.32];P = 0.025;SI 1.3+:OR = 35.75[95%CI,2.51 - 509.81];P = 0.008)。
在一家重症监护HEMS机构中,医疗和创伤患者中更高患者 acuity 的标志物与PHUS支持干预的发生相关。需要进行带有院内随访的前瞻性研究以证实这些产生假设的结果。奥多查泰格D、杜马M、阿列克修C、瑞安S、麦肯齐M。加拿大一家重症监护直升机紧急医疗服务机构院前超声的使用标准:确定谁可能获益。院前灾难医学。2017;32(5):536 - 540。