Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pdm.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Emergency Medical Services and the care of patients in the field have taken giant steps forward over the past decade. Born of the desire of physicians to influence the mortality rates of sudden cardiac death in the community, systems of advanced life support have taken root in the urban centers in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and other countries (1-3). Although originally largely designed around the concept of “mobile coronary care,” these systems soon were deluged with calls for help from all sectors of the community, and faced a variety of medical problems. As trauma gradually became recognized for the killer and maimer of young lives that it is, regional programs of trauma care were developed in the United States and led gradually to the expansion of prehospital and interhospital transport systems in which critically injured patients were being moved about, often over long distances. The growth of emergency medicine as a specialty in its own right has encouraged the study and improvement of systems of disaster and mass casualty management.
Although the focus of these efforts has been largely the overall reduction of death and disability in critically ill or injured patients, controversy continues around not only the extent of field intervention but also the influence of our efforts on the outcome of these patients (4, 5). The importance of particular interventions such as intravenous line placement, administration of certain medications, the use of the pneumatic anti-shock garment, and other sacred cows of prehospital care, all have been questioned of late (6, 7).
The oft-repeated historic development of the pneumatic lower body compression suit (MAST, PASG) for the presumed treatment of hypotension has been well-documented by McSwain(l). While the experimental and anecdotal clinical observations of Crile, Gardner, Wangenstein and Kaplan are interesting, they are not prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trials in humans(2,3,4,5). In the early 1970s, the EMS community was ripe for the bandwagon reflex to grasp at any and all gimmicks and gadgets which became available, regardless of a lack of evidence regarding their safety or danger to patients. Inventions such as the esophageal obturator airway, various darts, MAST, external cardiac bumpers, percutaneous trachea obturators, and many others simultaneously were thrust upon the unsuspecting and unprotected patient community. Some of these innovations may have been beneficial but others were dangerous. Contending that some intervention in a “life threatening, good Samaritan situation” was better than no interventional treatment or “stabilization” at all, the paramedics' blind faith in these modalities persisted. The Medical Device Amendment of 1976 (6), which requires safety and efficacy for devices, similar to that long in effect for new drugs, had not yet been enacted into law to require premarketing clearance of new medical devices. Building on blind faith and premature recommendations regarding in the unproven concept of MAST, the EMS community exercised poor judgment in recommending to state legislators that this unproven device be “required equipment” on board ambulances. Furthermore, this small cadre of “special interest groups” lobbied to have the MAST mandated as essential equipment in trauma centers(7,8). Although the minutes of the trauma planning meetings do not reflect the debate at the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, numerous voices of advised constraint, said “go slow” on including the MAST as part of the ATLS course and the ACS optimal resources document.
Nitroglycerine (NTG) commonly is used in the prehospital emergency care setting for the treatment of chest pain suggestive of myocardial ischemia or infarction or for cardiac unloading in patients with presumed pulmonary edema. The usual form of this drug is as a 400 mcg tablet administered sublingually. Recently, NTG has become available as an aerosolized form (NTGA) in a multiple dose, pressurized canister containing 200 metered doses of 400 meg of NTG each. In this form, the drug is purported to be absorbed rapidly from the surface of the tongue.
In the field, we have noted that the sublingual tablet form of NTG occasionally remains undissolved following administration to patients complaining of chest pain. In each of these cases, clinically, the patients were unchanged on arrival at the receiving hospital and an intact tablet was discovered properly placed under the tongue. In an attempt to evaluate the ease of administration and clinical responses of patients with chest pain to the aerosolized form of the drug, we replaced NTG sublingual tablets on paramedic units in the Burbank system with the NTGA form.
The use of the Pneumatic Anti-Shock Garment (PASG) has created much controversy in prehospital care. It is interesting that such an inexpensive device and technique has created so much controversy regarding effectiveness when expensive devices and techniques, such as coronary artery bypass, carotid endarteroectomy, and laser angioplasty have been questioned as to effectiveness, but have not created as much controversy.
Where do we stand on the PASG today? One well-done, randomized, prospective study has been reported as several different papers. In reality, these reports originate from only one study (1-5). This is compared to more than 200 other studies, many of which have been randomized, prospective studies in animals using the same quality as the randomized, prospective study done on humans. Such studies have the advantage of having better isolation of the specific condition being studied. It does not seem appropriate to base the clinical use or non-use on just one study. All studies should be reviewed and placed in context when attempting to identify the role the PASG has in patient care.
On November 23rd, 1980 at 7:34 p.m. a violent earthquake, 6 on the Richter scale, hit the South of Italy, at precisely the Regions of Campania and Basilicata. The shock lasted 80 seconds, causing death and destruction.
Basilicata, one of Italy's Southern Regions, has already been hit by several other earthquakes in the past, which seriously damaged its population and territory. It is a most mountainous region, with the only exception being a very small plain stretching towards the sea.
The Emergency Medical Service System in Tokyo has been developed through the cooperative efforts and achievements of many. EMS in Tokyo consists of three parts: 1) the network system of emergency hospitals; 2) the transportation system of emergency patients (Ambulance System); and 3) the communications system (Emergency Medical Information System). Emergency services are controlled by the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The former is in charge of ambulance and rescue services located in the fire department, the latter has to do with medical affairs.