首页> 外文期刊>Injury >Prehospital interventions for penetrating trauma victims: A prospective comparison between Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support
【24h】

Prehospital interventions for penetrating trauma victims: A prospective comparison between Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support

机译:穿透创伤受害者的院前干预:高级生命支持和基本生命支持的前瞻性比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Advanced Life Support (ALS) providers may perform more invasive prehospital procedures, while Basic Life Support (BLS) providers offer stabilisation care and often "scoop and run". We hypothesised that prehospital interventions by urban ALS providers prolong prehospital time and decrease survival in penetrating trauma victims. Study design: We prospectively analysed 236 consecutive ambulance-transported, penetrating trauma patients an our urban Level-1 trauma centre (6/2008-12/2009). Inclusion criteria included ICU admission, length of stay >/=2 days, or in-hospital death. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were compared between ALS and BLS patients. Single and multiple variable logistic regression analysis determined predictors of hospital survival. Results: Of 236 patients, 71% were transported by ALS and 29% by BLS. When ALS and BLS patients were compared, no differences in age, penetrating mechanism, scene GCS score, Injury Severity Score, or need for emergency surgery were detected (p > 0.05). Patients transported by ALS units more often underwent prehospital interventions (97% vs. 17%; p < 0.01), including endotracheal intubation, needle thoracostomy, cervical collar, IV placement, and crystalloid resuscitation. While ALS ambulance on-scene time was significantly longer than that of BLS (p < 0.01), total prehospital time was not (p = 0.98) despite these prehospital interventions (1.8 ± 1.0 per ALS patient vs. 0.2 ± 0.5 per BLS patient; p < 0.01). Overall, 69.5% ALS patients and 88.4% of BLS patients (p < 0.01) survived to hospital discharge. Conclusion: Prehospital resuscitative interventions by ALS units performed on penetrating trauma patients may lengthen on-scene time but do not significantly increase total prehospital time. Regardless, these interventions did not appear to benefit our rapidly transported, urban penetrating trauma patients.
机译:背景:高级生命支持(ALS)提供者可能会执行更具侵入性的院前程序,而基本生命支持(BLS)提供者则提供稳定护理,并且经常“隐蔽地运行”。我们假设城市ALS提供者进行院前干预会延长院前时间,并降低穿透伤的受害者的生存率。研究设计:我们前瞻性地分析了市区一级创伤中心(236/6 / 2008-12)的236名连续的救护车运输,穿透伤患者。纳入标准包括ICU入院,住院时间≥2天或住院死亡。比较了ALS和BLS患者的人口统计学,临床特征和结局。单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析确定了医院生存的预测指标。结果:236例患者中,有71%由ALS转运,有29%由BLS转运。比较ALS和BLS患者时,未发现年龄,穿刺机制,现场GCS评分,损伤严重程度评分或急诊手术的必要性差异(p> 0.05)。由ALS单位运送的患者接受院前干预的比例更高(97%比17%; p <0.01),包括气管插管,穿刺胸腔造口术,颈托,静脉置入和晶体复苏。尽管ALS的救护现场时间比BLS的要长得多(p <0.01),但尽管有这些院前干预措施,总的院前时间却没有(p = 0.98)(每名ALS患者为1.8±1.0,而每名BLS患者为0.2±0.5; p <0.01)。总体而言,有69.5%的ALS患者和88.4%的BLS患者(p <0.01)可以存活到出院。结论:由ALS单位对穿透性创伤患者进行的院前复苏干预可能会延长现场手术时间,但不会显着增加院前总时间。无论如何,这些干预措施似乎并未使我们快速运送的,城市穿透性创伤患者受益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号