Helit Nakar MD, Alex Sorkin MD, Roy Nadler MD, Avishai M. Tsur MD, Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Guy Avital MD, Elon Glassberg MD MHA MBA, Tarif Bader MD MHA MA, Lidar Fridrich MD, Jacob Chen MD MHA MSc, and Avi Benov MD MHA
Background: Pain control in trauma is an integral part of treatment in combat casualty care. More soldiers injured on the battlefield need analgesics for pain than life-saving interventions (LSIs). Early treatment of pain improves outcomes after injury, while inadequate treatment leads to higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Objective: To describe the experience of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Medical Corps with prehospital use of analgesia.
Methods: All cases documented in the IDF-Trauma Registry between January 1997 and December 2019 were examined. Data collection included analgesia administered, mechanism of injury, wound distribution, and life-saving interventions performed.
Results: Of 16,117 patients, 1807 (11.2%) had at least one documented analgesia. Demographics included 91.2% male; median age 21 years. Leading mechanism of injury was penetrating (52.9%). Of injured body regions reported, 46.2% were lower extremity wounds. Most common types of analgesics were morphine (57.2%) and fentanyl (27%). Over the two decades of the study period, types of analgesics given by providers at point of injury (POI) had changed. Fentanyl was introduced in 2013, and by 2019 was given to 39% of patients. Another change was an increase of casualties receiving analgesia from 5–10% until 2010 to 34% by 2019. A total of 824 LSIs were performed on 556 patients (30.8%) receiving analgesia and no adverse events were found in any of the casualties.
Conclusions: Most casualties at POI did not receive any analgesics. The most common analgesics administered were opioids. Over time analgesic administration has gained acceptance and become more commonplace on the battlefield.
Yotam Kolben MD, Henny Azmanov MD, Yuval Ishay MD, Efrat Orenbuch-Harroch MD, and Yael Milgrom MD.
Shaul Gelikas MD MBA, Dotan Yaari MD MHA, Guy Avital MD, Or Bainhoren MD, and Avi Benov MD MHA
Background: Pain management is fundamental in the treatment of a trauma casualty. Adequate pain management is associated with decreased long-term morbidity and chronic pain. Nonetheless, pain is frequently not documented nor adequately treated in the prehospital setting, a phenomenon described as oligoanalgesia. Gender bias has been suggested as a risk factor for oligoanalgesia.
Objectives: To examine the association between casualty gender and pain management in the prehospital trauma setting.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the Israel Defense Forces Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2020. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between casualty gender and pain management. For adult patients for whom gender was known, pain scores were documented.
Results: A total of 1044 casualties were included in the study; 894 (85.6%) were male. Females and males differed in several demographic and injury characteristics, including age in years (mean 36 vs. 27.6, P value < 0.001) and injury mechanism (16%% vs. 34.5% penetrating injury, P value < 0.001). Female casualties were less likely to be treated for pain (odds ratio [OR] 0.708, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.5–1, P = 0.05). However, after adjustment for various factors, including pain severity, this association was insignificant (OR 0.748, 95%CI 0.46–1.23, P = 0.25).
Conclusions: In this prehospital study, gender bias in pain management was not apparent. As women’s role on the battlefield continues to increase, further studies regarding the role of
The Rubrum Coelis Group*, and Jacob Chen MD MHA MSc, Alex Dobron BMedSc MOccH, Akiva Esterson BEMS MD, Lior Fuchs MD, Elon Glassberg MD MHA MBA, David Hoppenstein MBBCh, Regina Kalandarev-Wilson BEMS MD, Itamar Netzer MD MBA, Mor Nissan BEMS, Rachelly Shifer Ovsiovich DMD, Raphael Strugo MD, Oren Wacht BEMS MHA PhD, Chad G. Ball MD MSc FRCSC FACS, Naisan Garraway CD MD FRCSC FACS, Lawrence Gillman MD MMedEd FRCSC FACS, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick MD CD MHSc FRCSC FACS, Volker Kock CD MB, Paul McBeth MD MASc FRCS(C), Jessica McKee BA MSc, Juan Wachs PhD, and Scott K. d’Amours MDCM FRCSC FRACS FACS
Background: Handheld ultrasound devices present an opportunity for prehospital sonographic assessment of trauma, even in the hands of novice operators commonly found in military, maritime, or other austere environments. However, the reliability of such point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) examinations by novices is rightly questioned. A common strategy being examined to mitigate this reliability gap is remote mentoring by an expert.
Objectives: To assess the feasibility of utilizing POCUS in the hands of novice military or civilian emergency medicine service (EMS) providers, with and without the use of telementoring. To assess the mitigating or exacerbating effect telementoring may have on operator stress.
Methods: Thirty-seven inexperienced physicians and EMTs serving as first responders in military or civilian EMS were randomized to receive or not receive telementoring during three POCUS trials: live model, Simbionix trainer, and jugular phantom. Salivary cortisol was obtained before and after the trial. Heart rate variability monitoring was performed throughout the trial.
Results: There were no significant differences in clinical performance between the two groups. Iatrogenic complications of jugular venous catheterization were reduced by 26% in the telementored group (P < 0.001). Salivary cortisol levels dropped by 39% (P < 0.001) in the telementored group. Heart rate variability data also suggested mitigation of stress.
Conclusions: Telementoring of POCUS tasks was not found to improve performance by novices, but findings suggest that it may mitigate caregiver stress.