IntroductionThe California Prehospital Antifibrinolytic Therapy (Cal-PAT) study seeks to assess the safety and impact on patient mortality of tranexamic acid (TXA) administration in cases of trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock. The current study further aimed to assess the feasibility of prehospital TXA administration by paramedics within the framework of North American emergency medicine standards and protocols.MethodsThis is an ongoing multi-centered, prospective, observational cohort study with a retrospective chart-review comparison. Trauma patients identified in the prehospital setting with signs of hemorrhagic shock by first responders were administered one gram of TXA followed by an optional second one-gram dose upon arrival to the hospital, if the patient still met inclusion criteria. Patients administered TXA make up the prehospital intervention group. Control group patients met the same inclusion criteria as TXA candidates and were matched with the prehospital intervention patients based on mechanism of injury, injury severity score, and age. The primary outcomes were mortality, measured at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 28 days. Secondary outcomes measured included the total blood products transfused and any known adverse events associated with TXA administration.ResultsWe included 128 patients in the prehospital intervention group and 125 in the control group. Although not statistically significant, the prehospital intervention group trended toward a lower 24-hour mortality rate (3.9% vs 7.2% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.25), 48-hour mortality rate (6.3% vs 7.2% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.76), and 28-day mortality rate (6.3% vs 10.4% for intervention and control, respectively, p=0.23). There was no significant difference observed in known adverse events associated with TXA administration in the prehospital intervention group and control group. A reduction in total blood product usage was observed following the administration of TXA (control: 6.95 units; intervention: 4.09 units; p=0.01).ConclusionPreliminary evidence from the Cal-PAT study suggests that TXA administration may be safe in the prehospital setting with no significant change in adverse events observed and an associated decreased use of blood products in cases of trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock. Given the current sample size, a statistically significant decrease in mortality was not observed. Additionally, this study demonstrates that it may be feasible for paramedics to identify and safely administer TXA in the prehospital setting.

IntroductionAlternative destination transportation by emergency medical services (EMS) is a subject of hot debate between those favoring all patients being evaluated by an emergency physician (EP) and those recognizing the need to reduce emergency department (ED) crowding. This study aimed to determine whether paramedics could accurately assess a patient’s acuity level to determine the need to transport to an ED.MethodsWe performed a prospective double-blinded analysis of responses recorded by paramedics and EPs of arriving patients’ acuity level in a large Level II trauma center between April 2015 and November 2015. Under-triage was defined as lower acuity assessed by paramedics but higher acuity by EPs. Over-triage was defined as higher acuity assessed by paramedics but lower acuity by EPs. The degree of agreement between the paramedics and EPs’ evaluations of patient’s acuity level was compared using Chi-square test.ResultsWe included a total of 503 patients in the final analysis. For paramedics, 2 51 (49.9%) patients were assessed to be emergent, 178 (35.4%) assessed as urgent, and 74 (14.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. In comparison, the EPs assessed 296 (58.9%) patients as emergent, 148 (29.4%) assessed as urgent, and 59 (11.7%) assessed as non-emergent/non-urgent. Paramedics agreed with EPs regarding the acuity level assessment on 71.8% of the cases. The overall under- and over-triage were 19.3% and 8.9%, respectively. A moderate Kappa=0.5174 indicated moderate inter-rater agreement between paramedics’ and EPs’ assessment on the same cohort of patients.ConclusionThere is a significant difference in paramedic and physician assessment of patients into emergent, urgent, or non-emergent/non-urgent categories. The field triage of a patient to an alternative destination by paramedics under their current scope of practice and training cannot be supported.

OverviewDo-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are written by physicians so that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is not administered to patients who do not want to be resuscitated should they have a cardiac or pulmonary arrest. DNR orders are appropriate, effective, and common in hospitals: it is difficult to understand why they have largely been excluded from pre-hospital settings (1)(2)(3)(4). It is also surprising how little effort has been expended to make DNR orders portable between settings and durable in time. We will discuss the development of a pre-hospital DNR program in Orange County, California, with primary emphasis on the supportive role played by the Orange County Bioethics Network (OCBEN).Emergency room physicians and nurses as well as emergency medical technicians and paramedics have long been concerned about the occasional resuscitated patient for whom resuscitation seemed inappropriate, most particularly when the patient's surrogate, or the patient him/herself subsequently said that he/she would not have wanted resuscitation. These are the exceptions that prove the rule that under emergency circumstances the presumption should be in favor of life-sustaining or life-restoring treatment.To address some of these exceptions, emergency room personnel, the Program Director of the

No abstract

No abstract