Search

Abstract: The US-Mexico border is the busiest land crossing in the world and faces continuously increasing numbers of undocumented border crossers. Significant barriers to crossing are present in many regions of the border, including walls, bridges, rivers, canals, and the desert, each with unique features that can cause traumatic injury. The number of patients injured attempting to cross the border is also increasing, but significant knowledge gaps regarding these injuries and their impacts remain. The purpose of this scoping literature review is to describe the current state of trauma related to the US-Mexico border to draw attention to the problem, identify knowledge gaps in the existing literature, and introduce the creation of a consortium made up of representatives from border trauma centers in the Southwestern United States, the Border Region Doing Research on Trauma Consortium. Consortium members will collaborate to produce multicenter up-to-date data on the medical impact of the US-Mexico border, helping to elucidate the true magnitude of the problem and shed light on the impact cross-border trauma has on migrants, their families, and the US health care system. Only once the problem is fully described can meaningful solutions be provided., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients., Methods: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs. PIV vs. CVC)., Results: There were 1,410 access attempts that occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40 years (27-59 years) and an Injury Severity Score of 22 [10-34]. Nine hundred thirty-two PIV, 204 IO, and 249 CVC were attempted. Seventy percent of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0 minutes (3.2-8.0 minutes). Intraosseous had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt, 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt, 100% vs. 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO, 36 [23-60] seconds; PIV, 44 [31-61] seconds; CVC 171 [105-298]seconds) and was significantly different between IO versus CVC ( p < 0.001) and PIV versus CVC ( p < 0.001) but not PIV versus IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes versus 6.7 minutes ( p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001)., Conclusion: Intraosseous is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. Intraosseous access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)