R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2023;27(1):24-30. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2021.2015024. Epub 2022 Jan 25.
Widespread adoption of prehospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) systems has been slow and variable across the United States. We sought to determine the frequency of prehospital PCCD use by EMS providers. Secondarily, we hypothesized that prehospital PCCD use would improve early hemorrhagic shock outcomes.
We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 162 unstable pelvic ring injuries transported directly to our center by EMS from 2011 to 2020. Included patients received a PCCD during their resuscitation (prehospital or emergency department). Prehospital treatment details were obtained from the EMS medical record. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a PCCD by EMS before hospital arrival. Secondarily, we explored factors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD, and its association with changes in vital signs, blood transfusion, and mortality.
EMS providers documented suspicion of a pelvic ring fracture in 85 (52.8%) patients and 52 patients in the cohort (32.2%) received a prehospital PCCD. Wide variation in prehospital PCCD use was observed based on patient characteristics, geographic location, and EMS provider level. Helicopter flight paramedics applied a prehospital PCCD in 46% of the patients they transported (38/83); in contrast, the EMS organizations geographically closest to our hospital applied a PCCD in ≤5% of cases (2/47). Other predictors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD included lower body mass index ( = 0.005), longer prehospital duration ( = 0.001) and lower Injury Severity Score ( < 0.05). We were unable to identify any improvements in clinical outcomes associated with prehospital PCCD, including early vital signs, number of blood transfusions within 24 hours, or mortality during admission ( > 0.05).
Our results demonstrate wide practice variation in the application of prehospital PCCDs. Although disparate PCCD application across the state is likely explained by differences across EMS organizations and provider levels, our study was unable to identify any clinical benefits to the prehospital use of PCCDs. It is possible that the benefits of a prehospital PCCD can only be observed in the most displaced fracture patterns with the greatest early hemodynamic instability.
在美国,广泛采用院前骨盆环压缩装置(PCCD)的做法在急救医疗服务(EMS)系统中一直缓慢且不一致。我们旨在确定 EMS 提供者院前使用 PCCD 的频率。其次,我们假设院前 PCCD 的使用将改善早期出血性休克的结果。
我们对 2011 年至 2020 年间通过 EMS 直接转运至我院的 162 例不稳定骨盆环损伤患者进行了一项单中心回顾性队列研究。纳入的患者在复苏过程中(院前或急诊科)接受了 PCCD。院前治疗细节从 EMS 病历中获得。主要结局是 EMS 到达前接受 PCCD 的患者比例。其次,我们探讨了与接受院前 PCCD 相关的因素,以及其与生命体征、输血和死亡率变化的关系。
EMS 提供者在 85 例(52.8%)患者中记录了骨盆环骨折的怀疑,在队列中有 52 例患者(32.2%)接受了院前 PCCD。根据患者特征、地理位置和 EMS 提供者级别,院前 PCCD 的使用存在广泛差异。直升机飞行护理人员在他们转运的患者中 46%(38/83)应用了院前 PCCD;相比之下,距离我们医院最近的 EMS 组织在 ≤5%的病例中应用了 PCCD(2/47)。与接受院前 PCCD 相关的其他预测因素包括较低的体重指数(=0.005)、较长的院前持续时间(=0.001)和较低的损伤严重程度评分(<0.05)。我们无法确定院前 PCCD 与任何临床结局的改善相关,包括早期生命体征、24 小时内输血次数或住院期间死亡率(>0.05)。
我们的研究结果表明,院前 PCCD 的应用存在广泛的实践差异。尽管全州范围内的 PCCD 应用差异可能是由于 EMS 组织和提供者级别之间的差异造成的,但我们的研究未能确定院前使用 PCCD 的任何临床益处。只有在最移位的骨折模式和最大的早期血流动力学不稳定时,才能观察到院前 PCCD 的益处。