Background: The role of tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear, with several consensus guidelines advising against this practice. We developed both a dedicated airway team and coordinated education programme to facilitate ward management of tracheostomised COVID-19 patients. Here, we report outcomes in the first 100 COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy at our institution. Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients confirmed to have COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. The primary outcome measure was 30-day survival, accounting for severe organ dysfunction (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health [APACHE]-II score>17). Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, ICU stay, and healthcare workers directly involved in tracheostomy care acquiring COVID-19. Results: A total of 164 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU between March 9, 2020 and April 21, 2020. A total of 100 patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 55 [12] yr; 29% female) underwent tracheostomy; 64 (age: 57 [14] yr; 25% female) did not undergo tracheostomy. Despite similar APACHE-II scores, 30-day survival was higher in 85/100 (85%) patients after tracheostomy, compared with 27/64 (42%) non-tracheostomised patients {relative risk: 3.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.3e6.4); P<0.0001}. In patients with APACHE-II scores !17, 68/100 (68%) tracheotomised patients survived, compared with 12/64 (19%) non-tracheotomised patients (P<0.001). Tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation was associated with shorter duration of ventilation (mean difference: 6.0 days [95% CI: 3.1e9.0]; P<0.0001) and ICU stay (mean difference: 6.7 days [95% CI: 3.7e9.6]; P<0.0001). No healthcare workers developed COVID-19. Conclusion: Independent of the severity of critical illness from COVID-19, 30-day survival was higher and ICU stay shorter in patients receiving tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy appears to be safe in COVID-19.

Objectives Combat casualty care is a complex system involving multiple clinicians, medical interventions and casualty transfers. Improving the performance of this system requires examination of potential weaknesses. This study reviewed the cause and timing of death of casualties deemed to have died from their injuries after arriving at a medical treatment facility during the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to identify potential areas for improving outcomes. Methods This was a retrospective review of all casualties who reached medical treatment facilities alive, but subsequently died from injuries sustained during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It included all deaths from start to completion of combat operations. The UK military joint theatre trauma registry was used to identify cases, and further data were collected from clinical notes, postmortem records and coroner's reports. Results There were 71 combat-related fatalities who survived to a medical treatment facility; 17 (24%) in Iraq and 54 (76%) in Afghanistan. Thirty eight (54%) died within the first 24 h. Thirty-three (47%) casualties died from isolated head injuries, a further 13 (18%) had unsurvivable head injuries but not in isolation. Haemorrhage following severe lower limb trauma, often in conjunction with abdominal and pelvic injuries, was the cause of a further 15 (21%) deaths. Conclusions Severe head injury was the most common cause of death. Irrespective of available medical treatment, none of this group had salvageable injuries. Future emphasis should be placed in preventative strategies to protect the head against battlefield trauma.

ROTEM provides a means to rapidly assess coagulation in trauma casualties, allowing targeted use of blood products. It provides information on clot initiation strength and breakdown. However, its use in trauma has still to be fully evaluated.

Background Blood products are a lifesaving commodity in the treatment of major trauma. Although there is little evidence for use of pre-hospital blood products (PHBP) in seriously injured patients, an increasing number of emergency medical services have started using PHBP for treatment of major haemorrhage. The primary aim of this survey was to establish the degree of prehospital blood product use throughout Europe and discover main indications. The secondary aim was to evaluate opinions about PHBP and also the experience and the personal views of its users. Methods The subcommittee for Critical Emergency Medicine of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) held an online survey of European Helicopter Emergency Services (HEMS) and all French Services d’Aide Médicale Urgente (SAMU) regions. It contained 13 questions both open and multiple-choice about the frequency transfusions are carried out, the PHBP used and the perceived benefit. The survey was distributed to the corresponding HEMS leads in 14 European countries. Results In total there were 172 valid responses; overall 48% of all respondents have prehospital access to packed red cells, 22% to fresh plasma and 14% use lyophilised plasma. Besides blood product administration, 94% of all services use tranexamic acid. Sixty five percent of all replies came from French and from German services (37 and 28% respectively). PHBP were mainly used for trauma related emergencies. France has the highest uptake of use of blood products at 89%, whereas the rate in Germany was far lower at 6%. Fifty five percent of the service leads felt that PHBP are beneficial, and even lifesaving in individual cases despite being needed infrequently. Conclusions We found remarkable dissimilarities in practice between the different European countries. Even if there is not an absolute consensus amongst providers on the benefit of PHBP, the majority feel they are beneficial. The difference in practice is possibly related to the perceived lack of evidence on prehospital blood transfusion. We suggest to include the use of PHBP in trauma registries in order to consolidate the existing evidence.

Major trauma affects more than 20 000 people per annum in the UK. Some three quarters of these patients will experience moderate-to-severe pain either as a direct result of their injuries or during the course of their management. Acute pain is associated with activation of the stress response. Poorly treated pain can also result in considerable psychological stress, which can impact on ongoing treatment and rehabilitation post-injury. Additionally, pain may persist to become chronic pain — up to two-thirds of major trauma victims report ongoing pain severe enough to affect quality of life for several years after injury. Delivery of effective analgesia has been shown to reduce the adverse effects on outcome associated with undertreated pain.

IntroductionTriage is a key principle in the effective management of major incidents. There is currently a paucity of evidence to guide the triage of children. The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of nine adult and paediatric triage tools, including the novel ‘Sheffield Paediatric Triage Tool’ (SPTT), assessing their ability in identifying patients needing life-saving interventions (LSIs).MethodsA 10-year (2008–2017) retrospective database review of the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) Database for paediatric patients (<16 years) was performed. Primary outcome was identification of patients receiving one or more LSIs from a previously defined list. Secondary outcomes included mortality and prediction of Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15. Primary analysis was conducted on patients with complete prehospital physiological data with planned secondary analyses using first recorded data. Performance characteristics were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, undertriage and overtriage.Results15 133 patients met TARN inclusion criteria. 4962 (32.8%) had complete prehospital physiological data and 8255 (54.5%) had complete first recorded physiological data. The majority of patients were male (69.5%), with a median age of 11.9 years. The overwhelming majority of patients (95.4%) sustained blunt trauma, yielding a median ISS of 9 and overall, 875 patients (17.6%) received at least one LSI. The SPTT demonstrated the greatest sensitivity of all triage tools at identifying need for LSI (92.2%) but was associated with the highest rate of overtriage (75.0%). Both the Paediatric Triage Tape (sensitivity 34.1%) and JumpSTART (sensitivity 45.0%) performed less well at identifying LSI. By contrast, the adult Modified Physiological Triage Tool-24 (MPTT-24) triage tool had the second highest sensitivity (80.8%) with tolerable rates of overtriage (70.2%).ConclusionThe SPTT and MPTT-24 outperform existing paediatric triage tools at identifying those patients requiring LSIs. This may necessitate a change in recommended practice. Further work is needed to determine the optimum method of paediatric major incident triage, but consideration should be given to simplifying major incident triage by the use of one generic tool (the MPTT-24) for adults and children.

Introduction Primary blast lung injury occurs when an explosive shock wave passes through the thorax and transits through tissues of varying densities. It requires close proximity to an explosion and presents quick with respiratory distress in survivors. Materials and Methods The Joint Theatre Trauma Registry and the Defence Statistics (Health) Database were interrogated for casualties injured as a result of an explosion during the conflict in Afghanistan. The case notes and imaging of casualties meeting the criteria for diagnosis were reviewed. Demographic and clinical data on casualties with primary blast lung injury were analyzed. Results 848 blast-exposed casualties survived to discharge from intensive care, and 238 blast-exposed casualties were killed in action. Following exclusions, 111 case notes and all postmortem reports were reviewed in detail. About, 25 casualties had isolated primary blast lung injury (2.9% of casualties surviving to discharge from intensive care) and 31 nonsurvivors (13% of nonsurvivors) had the disease documented at postmortem. Severe cases of primary blast lung injury required an estimated average of 4.5 days of conventional mechanical ventilation. Conclusions 8.1% of blast exposed casualties suffered primary blast lung injury. It was a less severe disease than other nontraumatic forms of acute lung injury and did not cause deaths once a casualty had reached a combat support hospital. It was well managed with a relatively brief period of conventional mechanical ventilation.

IntroductionFuture conflicts may have limited use of aviation-based prehospital emergency care for evacuation. This will increase the likelihood of extended evacuation timelines and an extended hold at a forward hospital care facility following the completion of damage control surgery or acute medical interventions.MethodsA three-round Delphi Study was undertaken using a panel comprising 44 experts from the UK armed forces including clinicians, logisticians, medical planners and commanders. The panel was asked to consider the effect of an extended hold at Deployed Hospital Care (Forward) from the current 2-hour timeline to +4, +8, +12 and +24 hours on a broad range of clinical and logistical issues. Where 75% of respondents had the same opinion, consensus was accepted. Areas where consensus could not be achieved were used to identify future research priorities.ResultsConsensus was reached that increasing timelines would increase the personnel, logistics and equipment support required to provide clinical care. There is a tipping point with a prolonged hold over 8 hours, after which the greatest number of clinical concerns emerge. Additional specialties of surgeons other than general and orthopaedic surgeons will likely be required with holds over 24 hours, and robust telemedicine would not negate this requirement.ConclusionsRetaining acute medical emergencies at 4 hours, and head injuries was considered a particular risk. This could potentially be mitigated by an increased forward capacity of some elements of medical care and availability of a CT scanner and intracranial pressure monitoring at over 12 hours. Any efforts to mitigate the effects of prolonged timelines will come at the expense of an increased logistical burden and a reduction in mobility. Ultimately the true effect of prolonged timelines can only be answered by close audit and analysis of clinical outcomes during future operations with an extended hold.