Prehospital paramedic pleural decompression: A systematic review. Issue 10 (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sharrock, Ms. Kelsey; Shannon, Brendan; Garcia Gonzalez, Carlos; Clair, Toby St; Mitra, Biswadev; Noonan, Michael; Fitzgerald, Prof Mark; Olaussen, Alexander
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 52:Issue 10(2021)
• Page Start: 2778
• Page End: 2786
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: Ension pneumothorax -- Finger thoracostomy -- Needle thoracostomy -- Prehospital -- Paramedics -- Pleural decompression -- Tension pneumothorax; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.08.008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Highlights: Needle thoracostomy is associated with factors which frequently render it ineffective and iatrogenically harmful Finger thoracostomy is associated with improved clinical patient outcomes but has logistical and feasibility considerations Finger thoracostomy may be superior for pleural decompression, however available literature is not conclusive Additional comparative research is necessary to determine if and which procedure is superior Abstract: Background : Tension pneumothorax (TPT) is a frequent life-threat following thoracic injury. Time-critical decompression of the pleural cavity improves survival. However, whilst paramedics utilise needle thoracostomy (NT) and/or finger thoracostomy (FT) in the prehospital setting, the superiority of one technique over the other remains unknown. Aim: To determine and compare procedural success, complications and mortality between NT and FT for treatment of a suspected TPT when performed by paramedics. Methods: We searched four databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and Embase) from their commencement until 25 th August 2020. Studies were included if they analysed patients suffering from a suspected TPT who were treated in the prehospital setting with a NT or FT by paramedics (or local equivalent nonphysicians). Results: The search yielded 293 articles after duplicates were removed of which 19 were included for final analysis. Seventeen studies were retrospective (8 cohort; 7 case series; 2 case control) and two were prospective cohort studies. Only one study was comparative, and none were randomised controlled trials. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=13) and the remaining in Australia (n=4), Switzerland (n=1) and Canada (n=1). Mortality ranged from 12.5% to 79% for NT and 64.7% to 92.9% for FT patients. A higher proportion of complications were reported among patients managed with NT (13.7%) compared to FT (4.8%). We extracted three common themes from the papers of what constituted as a successful pleural decompression; vital signs improvement, successful pleural cavity access and absence of TPT at hospital arrival. Conclusion: Evidence surrounding prehospital pleural decompression of a TPT by paramedics is limited. Available literature suggests that both FT and NT are safe for pleural decompression, however both procedures have associated complications. Additional high-quality evidence and comparative studies investigating the outcomes of interest is necessary to determine if and which procedure is superior in the prehospital setting.