Bores Sam A, Pajerowski William, Carr Brendan G, Holena Daniel, Meisel Zachary F, Mechem C Crawford, Band Roger A
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;54(4):487-499.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.12.046. Epub 2018 Mar 1.
The optimal approach to prehospital care of trauma patients is controversial, and thought to require balancing advanced field interventions with rapid transport to definitive care.
We sought principally to examine any association between the amount of prehospital IV fluid (IVF) administered and mortality.
We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of trauma registry data patients who sustained penetrating trauma between January 2008 and February 2011, as identified in the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation registry with corresponding prehospital records from the Philadelphia Fire Department. Analyses were conducted with logistic regression models and instrumental variable analysis, adjusted for injury severity using scene vital signs before the intervention was delivered.
There were 1966 patients identified. Overall mortality was 22.60%. Approximately two-thirds received fluids and one-third did not. Both cohorts had similar Trauma and Injury Severity Score-predicted mortality. Mortality was similar in those who received IVF (23.43%) and those who did not (21.30%) (p = 0.212). Patients who received IVF had longer mean scene times (10.82 min) than those who did not (9.18 min) (p < 0.0001), although call times were similar in those who received IVF (24.14 min) and those who did not (23.83 min) (p = 0.637). Adjusted analysis of 1722 patients demonstrated no benefit or harm associated with prehospital fluid (odds ratio [OR] 0.905, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.75). Instrumental variable analysis utilizing variations in use of IVF across different Emergency Medical Services (EMS) units also found no association between the unit's percentage of patients that were provided fluids and mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.08).
We found no significant difference in mortality or EMS call time between patients who did or did not receive prehospital IVF after penetrating trauma.
创伤患者的院前护理最佳方法存在争议,且认为需要在高级现场干预与快速转运至确定性治疗之间取得平衡。
我们主要试图研究院前静脉输液(IVF)量与死亡率之间的任何关联。
我们对2008年1月至2011年2月期间遭受穿透性创伤的患者的创伤登记数据进行了回顾性队列分析,这些患者在宾夕法尼亚创伤系统基金会登记处被识别,并拥有来自费城消防局的相应院前记录。使用逻辑回归模型和工具变量分析进行分析,并在进行干预前根据现场生命体征对损伤严重程度进行调整。
共识别出1966例患者。总体死亡率为22.60%。约三分之二的患者接受了输液,三分之一未接受。两个队列的创伤和损伤严重程度评分预测死亡率相似。接受IVF的患者死亡率(23.43%)与未接受IVF的患者死亡率(21.30%)相似(p = 0.212)。接受IVF的患者平均现场停留时间(10.82分钟)比未接受IVF的患者长(9.18分钟)(p < 0.0001),尽管接受IVF的患者呼叫时间(24.14分钟)与未接受IVF的患者呼叫时间(23.83分钟)相似(p = 0.637)。对1722例患者的调整分析表明,院前输液没有益处或危害(优势比[OR] 0.905,95%置信区间[CI] 0.47 - 1.75)。利用不同紧急医疗服务(EMS)单位IVF使用差异的工具变量分析也未发现接受输液患者比例与死亡率之间的关联(OR 1.02,95% CI 0.96 - 1.08)。
我们发现穿透性创伤后接受或未接受院前IVF的患者在死亡率或EMS呼叫时间上没有显著差异。