To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
Hemorrhage remains the major cause of preventable death after trauma. Recent data suggest that earlier blood product administration may improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether opportunities exist for blood product transfusion by ground Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
This was a single EMS agency retrospective study of ground and helicopter responses from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015 for adult trauma patients transported from the scene of injury who met predetermined hemodynamic (HD) parameters for potential transfusion (heart rate [HR]≥120 and/or systolic blood pressure [SBP]≤90).
A total of 7,900 scene trauma ground transports occurred during the study period. Of 420 patients meeting HD criteria for transfusion, 53 (12.6%) had a significant mechanism of injury (MOI). Outcome data were available for 51 patients; 17 received blood products during their emergency department (ED) resuscitation. The percentage of patients receiving blood products based upon HD criteria ranged from 1.0% (HR) to 5.9% (SBP) to 38.1% (HR+SBP). In all, 74 Helicopter EMS (HEMS) transports met HD criteria for blood transfusion, of which, 28 patients received prehospital blood transfusion. Statistically significant total patient care time differences were noted for both the HR and the SBP cohorts, with HEMS having longer time intervals; no statistically significant difference in mean total patient care time was noted in the HR+SBP cohort.
In this study population, HD parameters alone did not predict need for ED blood product administration. Despite longer transport times, only one-third of HEMS patients meeting HD criteria for blood administration received prehospital transfusion. While one-third of ground Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport patients manifesting HD compromise received blood products in the ED, this represented 0.2% of total trauma transports over the study period. Given complex logistical issues involved in prehospital blood product administration, opportunities for ground administration appear limited within the described system.
MixFM, ZielinskiMD, MyersLA, BernsKS, LukeA, StubbsJR, ZietlowSP, JenkinsDH, SztajnkrycerMD. Prehospital Blood Product Administration Opportunities in Ground Transport ALS EMS – A Descriptive Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(3):230–236.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.