COMMON PREHOSPITAL COMPLICATIONS AND PITFALLS IN THE TRAUMA PATIENT

Published on 20/03/2015 by admin

Last modified 20/03/2015

Print this page

This article have been viewed 1512 times

CHAPTER 16 COMMON PREHOSPITAL COMPLICATIONS AND PITFALLS IN THE TRAUMA PATIENT

Frank L. Mitchell, Charles M. Richart, Harry E. Wilkins

The evolution of prehospital care in this country has an interesting and continually evolving record. Although there is recorded history of wagons and carts being used to transport the sick and injured as early as 900 ACE, the term “ambulance” was not used until introduced by Queen Isabella of Spain in the early 15th century. Even at that time, it referred more to military field hospitals and tents for the wounded than to a means of transporting wounded and dead from battlefields. Not until the time of Baron Larrey would the term “ambulance” take up its more current meaning of “a specially equipped motor vehicle, airplane, or ship for carrying sick or injured people, usually to a hospital.”¹

Baron Dominique-Jean Larrey was Napoleon Bonaparte’s surgeon and developed what was known as “flying ambulances.” Prior to 1792, there was very little organized transportation of the wounded from the battlefield. As is the case with most medical advances, advances in ambulance transportation occurred as a result of military conflict. Throughout the remainder of the 1800s and the conflicts of the early 20th century, ambulances and other means of transporting individuals from the field of battle were employed.

During the 1950s through the 1970s, helicopters were employed to transport the injured from battlefields to MASH (mobile army surgical hospital) units attaining particular effectiveness in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. Throughout the first several decades of the 20th century, civilian transport for the injured continued to lag behind advances established in the military.

One of the prime factors identified as contributing to the continued reduction in battlefield casualties from 8% in World War I to less than 2% in the Vietnam War was reducing the time from injury to initiation of medical care. On this backdrop, the mid-1960s and early 1970s sought to improve prehospital care, education, equipment, and processes. The early 1960s called for an extension of basic and advanced first aid training to greater numbers of the lay population, and preparation of nationally accepted texts, training aids, and courses of instruction for rescue squad personnel, policemen, firefighters, and ambulance attendants.² Ambulance services in the 1960s was very piecemeal and adequate at best. In a few major cities, there were specially equipped ambulances prepared to care for the injured and sick, and trained professional prehospital personnel were available. However, approximately 50% of the country’s ambulance services at that time were provided by over 12,000 morticians mainly because their vehicles were able to accommodate transportation of patients on gurneys or stretchers.

In the mid-1960s, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act ³ provided for the establishment of national standards for used motor vehicles, motor vehicle inspections, and emergency services. Communications were also problematic. At a time when the United States had just placed a man on the moon, it was easier in most instances to communicate with that extraterrestrial individual than it was for prehospital providers to communicate with the emergency department where they were headed.

Over the next several decades, the education and provision of specifically equipped vehicles progressed until the mid-1980s when Injury in America: a Continuing Public Health Problem was published.⁴ Although the report found that there had been significant progress in the credentialing and education of prehospital care providers, more than 2.5 million Americans died from injuries in the 1966–1985 period. This prompted the expenditure of more federal dollars to study the continuing public health problem, as the report noted and called for the institution of more systems of communication and transportation of the injured to facilities specially equipped for managing critically injured patients.

In 1992, the Model of Trauma Care Systems Plan, developed by Health Resources and Services Administration under the Authority of the Trauma Systems Planning and Development Act of 1990,⁵ marked the next major step in the evolution of health policy related to trauma care. This plan emphasized the need for a fully inclusive trauma care system that involved not only trauma centers, but also all health care facilities according to availability of trauma resources, including prehospital providers. As a result, the numbers of dedicated trauma centers and state trauma systems developed, although at a still less-than-adequate pace. Trauma centers were charged with becoming resource facilities for emergency medical response agencies. Educational programs such as Prehospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS), Basic Trauma Life Support (BTLS), and others were developed with states being empowered to license and credential prehospital providers at various levels.

Today, the initial care of the injured patient continues to reside primarily with trained prehospital providers. Emergency medical technician, basic, intermediate, and paramedic levels of instruction, with police and fire departments also being trained in basic life support, as well as increased communication and education with the lay public with regard to cardiac arrest, seat belt usage, wearing of helmets, and other prevention initiatives are in place to continue to try to combat the unacceptably high level of death and disability in this country from intentional and unintentional injury.

Along with the ever evolving technologies available to the prehospital provider come the unintended risk of complications associated with the implementation of these devices and processes. This chapter addresses some of the more common prehospital complications.

INCIDENCE

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the leading cause of death in the United States in 2002 for people aged 4–34 is overwhelmingly motor vehicle traffic crashes (Table 1). In terms of years of life lost, motor vehicle crashes ranks third, after malignant neoplasms and heart disease, at 5% of total years of life lost for the entire population.

Table 1 Deaths, Top 10 Causes by Age Group, United States, 2002^a

A total of 37% of trauma deaths are caused by motor vehicle crashes and motorcycle crashes. Other important causes of trauma deaths are gunshot wounds, stabbings, and falls. Today’s prehospital provider is in a position to be the first responder to the vast majority of these injuries at or shortly after the time they occur.

The major causes of death in the prehospital period are secondary to severe head injury, respiratory compromise, and exsanguinating hemorrhage. Initial and emergent prehospital treatment focuses on the treatment and prevention of these eventualities.

The foundation of Advanced Trauma Life Support® of the American College of Surgeons ⁶ stresses an ABC (airway, breathing, and circulation) approach. Much of the emphasis on prehospital care and subsequent care involves appropriate management of the airway, providing for ventilation by breathing for the patient, and control of circulation consisting of hemorrhage control and restoration of intravascular volume. Not surprisingly, the most common prehospital complications occur in these three areas.

AIRWAY

Ensuring that the trauma victim has a patent airway is the highest management priority.⁷ If manual maneuvers (clearing the airway of foreign bodies, jaw thrust, or chin lift) or basic adjuncts (oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal airways) are not adequate to maintain the airway, then alternate, more invasive methods are required.

Current prehospital techniques used for airway management and ventilation include (1) bag-valve-mask (BVM), (2) laryngeal mask airways (LMA), (3) dual lumen tubes (i.e., Combitubes), (4) endotracheal intubation (with or without the use of paralytics), and (5) emergency cricothyroidotomy.

BVM can be a temporizing method for providing adequate oxygenation and ventilation of the injured patient, but can occasionally be problematic related to obtaining an adequate seal at the mouth, potential for aspiration, problems with bleeding from soft tissue injury, patient cooperation, and the lack of satisfactory ventilation and oxygenation depending on the specific clinical situation. Acute gastric dilatation from overzealous ventilation can also lead to ventilatory impairment from increased intra-abdominal pressure, and, in extreme cases, gastric rupture.

The prehospital use of LMAs and dual lumen tubes has an advantage over conventional endotracheal intubation related to ease of technique and maintenance of insertion skill. LMAs and dual lumen tubes are beneficial in an unconscious patient who cannot be adequately ventilated with a BVM device and/or cannot be successfully intubated. However, because the trachea is not completely protected, the use of an LMA may result in aspiration. The use of dual lumen tubes may also result in aspiration if the gag reflex is intact, and there is also potential for damage to the esophagus, and the possibility for hypoxia if the wrong lumen is used.

The identification of patients requiring definitive airway management may sometimes be problematic based on the patient’s injuries, mental status (secondary to injury, alcohol, and/or drugs), underlying medical conditions, and the experience of the prehospital provider. Delay of intubation until respiratory arrest increases morbidity and mortality and should be avoided if at all possible. Early recognition of the need for intubation is of paramount importance for the prehospital provider.

Buy Membership for Critical Care Medicine Category to continue reading. Learn more here