Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Analysis of emergency resuscitative thoracotomy in the combat setting
  1. Andrew David Fisher1,2,
  2. M D April3,
  3. J M Gurney4,
  4. S A Shackelford5,
  5. C Luppens6,7 and
  6. S G Schauer3,8,9
  1. 1Department of Surgery, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  2. 2Texas, National Guard, Arlington, Virginia, USA
  3. 3Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  4. 4Joint Trauma System, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA
  5. 5Defense Health Agency, Colorado Springs Market, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
  6. 6Summit Health, Bend, Oregon, USA
  7. 7St Charles Medical Center, Bend, Oregon, USA
  8. 8Departments of Anesthesiology and Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
  9. 9Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  1. Correspondence to Mr Andrew David Fisher; anfisher{at}salud.unm.edu

Abstract

Introduction Emergency resuscitative thoracotomy (ERT) is a resource-intensive procedure that can deplete a combat surgical team’s supply and divert attention from casualties with more survivable injuries. An understanding of survival after ERT in the combat trauma population will inform surgical decision-making.

Methods We requested all encounters from 2007 to 2023 from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR). We analysed any documented thoracotomy in the emergency department and excluded any case for which it was not possible to distinguish ERT from operating room thoracotomy. The primary outcome was 24-hour mortality.

Results There were 48 301 casualties within the original dataset. Of those, 154 (0.3%) received ERT, with 114 non-survivors and 40 survivors at 24 hours. There were 26 (17%) survivors at 30 days. The majority were performed in role 3. The US military made up the largest proportion among the non-survivors and survivors. Explosives predominated in both groups (61% and 65%). Median Composite Injury Severity Scores were lower among the non-survivors (19 vs 33). Non-survivors had a lower proportion of serious head injuries (13% vs 40%) and thorax injuries (32% vs 58%). Median RBC consumption was lower among non-survivors (10 units vs 19 units), as was plasma (6 vs 16) and platelets (0 vs 3). The most frequent interventions and surgical procedures were exploratory thoracotomy (n=140), chest thoracostomy (n=137), open cardiac massage (n=131) and closed cardiac massage (n=121).

Conclusion ERT in this group of combat casualties resulted in 26% survival at 24 hours. Although this proportion is higher than that reported in civilian data, more rigorous prospective studies would need to be conducted or improvement in the DoDTR data capture methods would need to be implemented to determine the utility of ERT in combat populations.

  • ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE
  • Blood bank & transfusion medicine
  • Adult intensive & critical care
  • Trauma management
  • Adult surgery
  • Thoracic surgery

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • X @FisherAD1, @armyemdoc

  • Contributors ADF is the guarantor. ADF, JMG, SAS, MAD and SGS participated in the study design. ADF, SGS and MAD participated in the data collection. ADF, SGS, MAD and SGS participated in the data analysis. ADF, JMG, SAS, CL, MAD and SGS participated in the writing and in the critical revision.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Disclaimer Opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.