The Initial Response to the Boston Marathon Bombing

Abstract

Objective We discuss the strengths of the medical response to the Boston Marathon bombings that led to the excellent outcomes. Potential shortcomings were recognized, and lessons learned will provide a foundation for further improvements applicable to all institutions. Background Multiple casualty incidents from natural or man-made incidents remain a constant global threat. Adequate preparation and the appropriate alignment of resources with immediate needs remain the key to optimal outcomes. Methods A collaborative effort among Boston’s trauma centers (2 level I adult, 3 combined level I adult/pediatric, 1 freestanding level I pediatric) examined the details and outcomes of the initial response. Each center entered its respective data into a central database (REDCap), and the data were analyzed to determine various prehospital and early in-hospital clinical and logistical parameters that collectively define the citywide medical response to the terrorist attack. Results A total of 281 people were injured, and 127 patients received care at the participating trauma centers on that day. There were 3 (1%) immediate fatalities at the scene and no in-hospital mortality. A majority of the patients admitted (66.6%) suffered lower extremity soft tissue and bony injuries, and 31 had evidence for exsanguinating hemorrhage, with field tourniquets in place in 26 patients. Of the 75 patients admitted, 54 underwent urgent surgical intervention and 12 (22%) underwent amputation of a lower extremity. Conclusions Adequate preparation, rapid logistical response, short transport times, immediate access to operating rooms, methodical multidisciplinary care delivery, and good fortune contributed to excellent outcomes.

The characteristics of patients in mass public shootings among coup attempt in Turkey: A single-center hospital response

“…This highlights the importance of effective and on-site intervention of the EMS system, as in the Boston Marathon bombing. [12] Although our hospital covered 10% of all armed injuries, we observed that our patient care quality improved; however, the disaster management principles were violated due to a relatively low number of patients presenting to the ED in a short period. Fifteen patients with a mean ISS score of 4 were followed in the ED setting for eight hours or more.…”

The role of plastic surgeons in extremity reconstruction following mass casualty incidents

“…The authors found that those with insensate lower limbs who underwent reconstruction had proportionally similar plantar sensation on testing at two years when compared to those who had intact plantar sensation prior to reconstruction [13] . Adding complexity to the situation, delayed access to patients at the location of disasters interrupts transport and evaluation and lengthens ischemia time, thereby increasing risk of compartment syndrome and rates of amputation [6,14] .…”

“…The ground-level positioning and shrapnel components of the explosives lead to significant extremity trauma [5] . In total, 66% of admitted patients had lower extremity soft tissue and/or bony injuries [6] .…”

“…Moreover, nearly 50% of these emergent surgery patients required free flaps for limb salvage [8] . Among all receiving hospitals, 54 patients underwent emergent surgery and 12 patients underwent definitive amputation for control of life-threatening hemorrhage and/or severe, unsalvageable extremity wounds [6] .…”

Potential benefit of physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service for regional trauma care system activation: An observational study in rural Japan

“…Furthermore, trauma care systems should also be established for potential mass casualty incidents. For example, after the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, 26 facilities received patients 21 ) . After the 2015 terror attack in Paris, 16 facilities received emergency patients 22 ) .…”