OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to characterize modern point-of-injury (POI) en-route care platforms and to compare mortality among casualties evacuated with conventional military retrieval (CMR) methods to those evacuated with an advanced medical retrieval (AMR) capability. BACKGROUND: Following a decade of war in Afghanistan, the impact of en-route care capabilities from the POI on mortality is unknown. METHODS: Casualties evacuated from POI to one level III facility in Afghanistan (July 2008-March 2012) were identified from UK and US trauma registries. Groups comprised those evacuated by a medically qualified provider-led, AMR and those by a medic-led CMR capability. Outcomes were compared per incremental Injury Severity Score (ISS) bins. RESULTS: Most casualties (n = 1054; 61.2%) were in the low-ISS (1-15) bracket in which there was no difference in en-route care time or mortality between AMR and CMR. Casualties in the mid-ISS bracket (16-50) (n = 583; 33.4%) experienced the same median en-route care time (minutes) on AMR and CMR platforms [78 (58) vs 75 (93); P = 0.542] although those on AMR had shorter time to operation [110 (95) vs 117 (126); P < 0.001]. In this mid-ISS bracket, mortality was lower in the AMR than in the CMR group (12.2% vs 18.2%; P = 0.035). In the high-ISS category (51-75) (n = 75; 4.6%), time to operation was lower in the AMR than the CMR group (66 ± 77 vs 113 ± 122; P = 0.013) but there was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes en-route care capabilities from POI in modern combat. Conventional platforms are effective in most casualties with low injury severity. However, a definable injury severity exists for which evacuation with an AMR capability is associated with improved survival.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to characterize modern point-of-injury (POI) en-route care platforms and to compare mortality among casualties evacuated with conventional military retrieval (CMR) methods to those evacuated with an advanced medical retrieval (AMR) capability. BACKGROUND: Following a decade of war in Afghanistan, the impact of en-route care capabilities from the POI on mortality is unknown. METHODS: Casualties evacuated from POI to one level III facility in Afghanistan (July 2008-March 2012) were identified from UK and US trauma registries. Groups comprised those evacuated by a medically qualified provider-led, AMR and those by a medic-led CMR capability. Outcomes were compared per incremental Injury Severity Score (ISS) bins. RESULTS: Most casualties (n = 1054; 61.2%) were in the low-ISS (1-15) bracket in which there was no difference in en-route care time or mortality between AMR and CMR. Casualties in the mid-ISS bracket (16-50) (n = 583; 33.4%) experienced the same median en-route care time (minutes) on AMR and CMR platforms [78 (58) vs 75 (93); P = 0.542] although those on AMR had shorter time to operation [110 (95) vs 117 (126); P < 0.001]. In this mid-ISS bracket, mortality was lower in the AMR than in the CMR group (12.2% vs 18.2%; P = 0.035). In the high-ISS category (51-75) (n = 75; 4.6%), time to operation was lower in the AMR than the CMR group (66 ± 77 vs 113 ± 122; P = 0.013) but there was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes en-route care capabilities from POI in modern combat. Conventional platforms are effective in most casualties with low injury severity. However, a definable injury severity exists for which evacuation with an AMR capability is associated with improved survival.
Authors: Joshua B Brown; Jason L Sperry; Anisleidy Fombona; Timothy R Billiar; Andrew B Peitzman; Francis X Guyette Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Anthony E Pusateri; Ernest E Moore; Hunter B Moore; Tuan D Le; Francis X Guyette; Michael P Chapman; Angela Sauaia; Arsen Ghasabyan; James Chandler; Kevin McVaney; Joshua B Brown; Brian J Daley; Richard S Miller; Brian G Harbrecht; Jeffrey A Claridge; Herb A Phelan; William R Witham; A Tyler Putnam; Jason L Sperry Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Joshua B Brown; Mitchell J Cohen; Joseph P Minei; Ronald V Maier; Michaela A West; Timothy R Billiar; Andrew B Peitzman; Ernest E Moore; Joseph Cuschieri; Jason L Sperry Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John B Holcomb; Michael D Swartz; Stacia M DeSantis; Thomas J Greene; Erin E Fox; Deborah M Stein; Eileen M Bulger; Jeffrey D Kerby; Michael Goodman; Martin A Schreiber; Martin D Zielinski; Terence O'Keeffe; Kenji Inaba; Jeffrey S Tomasek; Jeanette M Podbielski; Savitri N Appana; Misung Yi; Charles E Wade Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Andrew-Paul Deeb; Lara Hoteit; Shimena Li; Francis X Guyette; Brian J Eastridge; Raminder Nirula; Gary A Vercruysse; Terence O'Keeffe; Bellal Joseph; Matthew D Neal; Jason L Sperry; Joshua B Brown Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Julian Bion; Rinaldo Bellomo; John Myburgh; Anders Perner; Konrad Reinhart; Simon Finfer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Stacy A Shackelford; Deborah J Del Junco; Nicole Powell-Dunford; Edward L Mazuchowski; Jeffrey T Howard; Russ S Kotwal; Jennifer Gurney; Frank K Butler; Kirby Gross; Zsolt T Stockinger Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 56.272