Penetrating XXXX : in-field stabilization vs. prompt transport.

@entity1 @entity764 @entity130
One hundred @entity1 who were in extremis and required Emergency Room Thoracotomy (ERT) after sustaining penetrating @entity764 were analyzed to compare the results of attempted stabilization in the field (n = 51) with those who had immediate transportation (n = 49). The clinical status of the @entity1 in the field and in the E.R. was quantified by @entity130 Score (TS) as well as Physiologic Index (PI), ranging in severity from 20 (clinically dead) to 5 (stable). The anatomic injury severity was expressed by Penetrating @entity130 Index (PTI). Survival was analyzed according to the type of injuries: noncardiac and cardiac. The overall survival was 10%. There was only one survivor with noncardiac injuries. Sixty-nine @entity1 had cardiac penetration, 33 in Group I (stabilization) and 36 in Group II (immediate transport). Despite attempts at stabilization, none of the @entity1 in Group I showed an improvement in clinical status from the scene to the emergency room. There were a higher number of @entity1 arriving at the E.R. with signs of life in Group II compared to Group I. In Group II @entity1 , survival was significantly improved overall (p = 0.01), in @entity1 with signs of life on arrival at the hospital (p = 0.02) and in @entity1 with isolated right ventricular wounds (p = 0.01) compared with Group I. The anatomic injury severity (PTI) as well as the mode of injury in the two groups was similar.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
