Blancher, Marc, François Albasini, Fidel Elsensohn, Ken Zafren, Natalie Hölzl, Kyle McLaughlin, Albert R. Wheeler III, Steven Roy, Hermann Brugger, Mike Greene, and Peter Paal. Management of multi-casualty incidents in mountain rescue: Evidence-based guidelines of the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine (ICAR MEDCOM). High Alt Med Biol. 19:131–140, 2018.Introduction: Multi-Casualty Incidents (MCI) occur in mountain areas. Little is known about the incidence and character of such events, and the kind of rescue response. Therefore, the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine (ICAR MEDCOM) set out to provide recommendations for the management of MCI in mountain areas.Materials and Methods: Details of MCI occurring in mountain areas related to mountaineering activities and involving organized mountain rescue were collected. A literature search using (1) PubMed, (2) national mountain rescue registries, and (3) lay press articles on the internet was performed. The results were analyzed with respect to specific aspects of mountain rescue.Results: We identified 198 MCIs that have occurred in mountain areas since 1956: 137 avalanches, 38 ski lift accidents, and 23 other events, including lightning injuries, landslides, volcanic eruptions, lost groups of people, and water-related accidents.Discussion: General knowledge on MCI management is required. Due to specific aspects of triage and management, the approach to MCIs may differ between those in mountain areas and those in urban settings.Conclusions: Mountain rescue teams should be prepared to manage MCIs. Knowledge should be reviewed and training performed regularly. Cooperation between terrestrial rescue services, avalanche safety authorities, and helicopter crews is critical to successful management of MCIs in mountain areas.

Background Multiple trauma in mountain environments may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared to urban environments. Objective To provide evidence based guidance to assist rescuers in multiple trauma management in mountain environments. Eligibility criteria All articles published on or before September 30th 2019, in all languages, were included. Articles were searched with predefined search terms. Sources of evidence PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and hand searching of relevant studies from the reference list of included articles. Charting methods Evidence was searched according to clinically relevant topics and PICO questions. Results Two-hundred forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were developed and graded according to the evidence-grading system of the American College of Chest Physicians. The manuscript was initially written and discussed by the coauthors. Then it was presented to ICAR MedCom in draft and again in final form for discussion and internal peer review. Finally, in a face-to-face discussion within ICAR MedCom consensus was reached on October 11th 2019, at the ICAR fall meeting in Zakopane, Poland. Conclusions Multiple trauma management in mountain environments can be demanding. Safety of the rescuers and the victim has priority. A crABCDE approach, with haemorrhage control first, is central, followed by basic first aid, splinting, immobilisation, analgesia, and insulation. Time for on-site medical treatment must be balanced against the need for rapid transfer to a trauma centre and should be as short as possible. Reduced on-scene times may be achieved with helicopter rescue. Advanced diagnostics (e.g. ultrasound) may be used and treatment continued during transport.

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of analgesia used in mountain rescue (MR) in casualties with moderate or severe pain. To determine if a verbal numeric pain score is practical in this environment. To describe the analgesic strategies used by MR. Design Prospective, descriptive study. Setting Fifty-one MR teams in England and Wales. The study period was 1 September 2008 to 31 August 2010. Participants 92 MR casualties with a pain scoreof 4/10 or greater. Main outcome 38% of casualties achieved a pain reduction of 50% or greater in their initial score at 15 min and 60.2% had achieved this at handover. Results The initial pain score was 8 (median), reducing to 5 at 15 min and 3 at handover. The mean pain reduction was 2.5±2.4 at 15 min and 3.9±2.5 at handover. 80 casualties (87%) were treated with an opioid and seven had two different opioids administered. Seven main strategies were identified in which the principal agent was entonox, intramuscular opioid, oral analgesia, fentanyl lozenge, intranasal or intravenous opioid. The choice of strategy varied with the skills of the casualty carer. Conclusions Pain should be assessed using a pain score. When possible, intravenous opioid is the gold standard to achieve early and continuing pain control in patients with moderate or severe pain. Entonox and oral analgesics, as sole agents, have limited use in moderate or severe pain. Intranasal opioid and fentanyl lozenge are effective, and appropriate in MR. Research priorities include bioavailability in different environmental conditions and patient's satisfaction with their pain management.

No abstract

Femur fractures are rare within mountain rescue. Traction splints may be no more effective than other methods of splinting in prehospital care. We failed to identify evidence that supports the hypothesis that traction splints reduce morbidity or mortality. We advocate the use of a femoral traction splints but recognize that other splints may also be appropriate in this environment.