No abstract

Introduction In peacetime, it is challenging for Army Forward Resuscitative Surgical Teams (FRST) to maintain combat readiness as trauma represents <0.5% of military hospital admissions and not all team members have daily clinical responsibilities. Military surgeon clinical experience has been described, but no data exist for other members of the FRST. We test the hypothesis that the clinical experience of non-physician FRST members varies between active duty (AD) and Army reservists (AR). Methods Over a 3-year period, all FRSTs were surveyed at one civilian center. Results Six hundred and thirteen FRST soldiers were provided surveys and 609 responded (99.3%), including 499 (81.9%) non-physicians and 110 (18.1%) physicians/physician assistants. The non-physician group included 69% male with an average age of 34 ± 11 years and consisted of 224 AR (45%) and 275 AD (55%). Rank ranged from Private to Colonel with officers accounting for 41%. For AD vs. AR, combat experience was similar: 50% vs. 52% had ≥1 combat deployment, 52% vs. 60% peri-deployment patient load was trauma-related, and 31% vs. 32% had ≥40 patient contacts during most recent deployment (all P > .15). However, medical experience differed for AD and AR: 18% vs. 29% had >15 years of experience in practice and 4% vs. 17% spent >50% of their time treating critically injured patients (all P < .001). These differences persisted across all specialties, including perioperative nurses, certified registered nurse anesthetists, operating room (OR) techs, critical-care nurses, emergency room (ER) nurses, licensed practical nurse (LPN), and combat medics. Conclusions This is the first study of clinical practice patterns in AD vs. AR, non-physician members of Army FRSTs. In concordance with previous studies of military surgeons, FRST non-physicians seem to be lacking clinical experience as well. To maintain readiness and to provide optimal care for our injured warriors, the entire FRST, not just individuals, should embed within civilian centers.

The recognition of fibrinolysis phenotypes in trauma patients has led to a reevaluation of antifibrinolytic therapy (AF). Many cardiac patients also receive AF, however the distribution of fibrinolytic phenotypes in that population is unknown. The purpose of this study was to fill that gap. Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed from 78 cardiac surgery patients. Phenotypes were defined as hypofibrinolytic (LY30 <0.8%), physiologic (LY30 0.8-3.0%) and hyperfibrinolytic (LY30 >3%). Continuous variables were expressed as M ± SD or median (interquartile range). Results: The study population was 65±10 yrs old, 74% male, average body mass index of 29±5 kg/m2. Fibrinolytic phenotypes were distributed as physiologic=45%, hypo=32% and hyper = 23%. There was no obvious effect of age, gender, race, or ethnicity on the distribution of fibrinolysis phenotypes; 47% received AF. The time with chest tube during post-operative recovery was longer in those who received AF (4[3,5] days) vs no AF (3[2,4] days), P=0.037). All cause morbidity occurred in 51% of patients who received AF vs 25% with no AF (p=0.017). However, with AF vs no AF, apparent differences in median chest tube output (1379 vs 820ml, p=0.075), hospital LOS (13 vs 10 days, P=0.873), estimated blood loss (1100 vs 775 ml, P=0.127), units of transfused RBCs (4 vs 2], P=0.152) or all-cause mortality (5.4% [2/37] vs 10% [4/41], P=0.518) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: This is the first description of three distinctly different fibrinolytic phenotypes in cardiac surgery patients. In this population, the use of AF was associated with increased morbidity.

Background In trauma patients, the recognition of fibrinolysis phenotypes has led to a re‐evaluation of the risks and benefits of antifibrinolytic therapy (AF). Many cardiac patients also receive AF, but the distribution of fibrinolytic phenotypes in that population is unknown. The purpose of this hypothesis‐generating study was to fill that gap. Methods Seventy‐eight cardiac surgery patients were retrospectively reviewed. Phenotypes were defined as hypofibrinolytic (LY30 <0.8%), physiologic (0.8%–3.0%), and hyperfibrinolytic (>3%) based on thromboelastogram. Results The population was 65 ± 10‐years old, 74% male, average body mass index of 29 ± 5 kg/m2. Fibrinolytic phenotypes were distributed as physiologic = 45% (35 of 78), hypo = 32% (25 of 78), and hyper = 23% (18 of 78). There was no obvious effect of age, gender, race, or ethnicity on this distribution; 47% received AF. For AF versus no AF, the time with chest tube was longer (4 [1] vs. 3 [1] days, p = .037), and all‐cause morbidity was more prevalent (51% vs. 25%, p = .017). However, when these two groups were further stratified by phenotypes, there were within‐group differences in the percentage of patients with congestive heart failure (p = .022), valve disease (p = .024), on‐pump surgery (p < .0001), estimated blood loss during surgery (p = .015), transfusion requirement (p = .015), and chest tube output (p = .008), which highlight other factors along with AF that might have affected all‐cause morbidity. Conclusion This is the first description of the prevalence of three different fibrinolytic phenotypes and their potential influence on cardiac surgery patients. The use of AF was associated with increased morbidity, but because of the small sample size and treatment allocation bias, additional confirmatory studies are necessary. We hope these present findings open the dialog on whether it is safe to administer AFs to cardiac surgery patients who are normo‐ or hypofibrinolytic.