Recently the U.S. Air Force gave a grant to researchers at the University of Cincinnati in the amount of over $2 million to determine if evacuating severe casualties from the battlefield can do more harm then overall good. Since field hospitals in a war zone are aimed at stabilizing patients until they can get to definitive care, it is imperative to be able to transport those injured soldiers as fast as possible. This is most commonly done via a "medical evaluation plane", which flies the casualties out to safety, at high altitudes of about 8,000 feet. Because of the higher altitude, there is less oxygen concentration in the air, which a body in a state of shock is desperately in need of. The job of these researchers is to determine when it is appropriate to fly these more serious patients out as to not cause any additional injury.
This is an area where little or no research exists. It has always been thought that getting patients to the proper treatment as soon as possible will yield the best outcome. Though I find the reason for this research credible because with any battlefield casualty, the condition is often severe. Should the field hospital work to stabilize this casualty, fly them out too soon only to have the stress of the flight send them into a severe state of shock, then all their hard work was in vain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Does it note whether or not there has historically been an increase in successful saves? If over time there are more injured personnel saved, then the prep for flight or stabilization may be the key to the successful transfer. Don't you think this would affect the outcomes more than the flight itself?
I would assume that there has been unofficial correlation concerning the issue that has prompted the study.
There have been studies regarding pulmonary embolism in patients’ transported by air as well as PE in civilian air passengers. I think the end result will be that the most critical patients are not the necessarily the ones to be transported out. Those patients may need to stabilize or improve to be well enough to endure the environment of air travel. I think it goes without question that the patient is best served in a facility away from the battle zone; however, the priority of transport may need a rethinking.
and another thing. Since the research is already done and in multiple issues of the NEJM the stury looks like pork barrel spending to me.
Post a Comment