Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers

Chih Yuan Fu, Yu Tung Wu, Chien Hung Liao, Shih Ching Kang, Shang Yu Wang, Yu Pao Hsu, Being Chuan Lin, Kuo Ching Yuan, I. Ming Kuo, Chun Hsiang Ouyang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction Patients with pelvic fracture usually require transfers to trauma centers for additional advanced treatment. Patient safety during the transfer should always be a priority. The noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) can reportedly provide a tamponade effect, which reduces hemorrhage. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of PCCD in patients with pelvic fracture who required transfer to trauma centers. Materials and Methods In the present study, we aimed to evaluate patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other hospitals. We investigated and compared the characteristics of these types of patients with and without pretransfer PCCD. We compared 2 groups (with and without pretransfer PCCD) of patients under different situations (unstable pelvic fracture, stable pelvic fracture, or indicated for transcatheter arterial embolization). We also analyzed the characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fracture who were initially evaluated as having stable pelvic fracture primarily before being transferred. Results During the 53-month period, we enrolled 585 patients in the study. The patients with unstable pelvic fractures who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (398.4 ± 417.6 mL vs 1954.5 ± 249.0 mL, P <.001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS; 6.6 ± 5.2 days vs 11.8 ± 7.7 days, P =.024), and shorter hospital LOS (9.4 ± 7.0 days vs 19.5 ± 13.7 days, P =.006) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. The stable patients who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (120.2 ± 178.5 mL vs 231.8 ± 206.2 mL, P =.018) and had shorter intensive care unit LOS (1.7 ± 3.3 days vs 3.4 ± 2.9 days, P =.029) and shorter hospital LOS (6.8 ± 5.1 days vs 10.4 ± 7.6 days, P =.018) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. Conclusion Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fracture who need to be transferred to trauma centers. Pretransfer PCCDs appeared to be a feasible and safe procedure during the transfer. In discussions between the referring physicians and the receiving physicians, we recommend using pretransfer PCCDs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1432-1436
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume31
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Trauma Centers
Blood Transfusion
Intensive Care Units
Physicians
Patient Safety
Length of Stay
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Fu, C. Y., Wu, Y. T., Liao, C. H., Kang, S. C., Wang, S. Y., Hsu, Y. P., ... Ouyang, C. H. (2013). Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 31(10), 1432-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.044

Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers. / Fu, Chih Yuan; Wu, Yu Tung; Liao, Chien Hung; Kang, Shih Ching; Wang, Shang Yu; Hsu, Yu Pao; Lin, Being Chuan; Yuan, Kuo Ching; Kuo, I. Ming; Ouyang, Chun Hsiang.

In: American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 31, No. 10, 01.10.2013, p. 1432-1436.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fu, CY, Wu, YT, Liao, CH, Kang, SC, Wang, SY, Hsu, YP, Lin, BC, Yuan, KC, Kuo, IM & Ouyang, CH 2013, 'Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers', American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1432-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.044
Fu, Chih Yuan ; Wu, Yu Tung ; Liao, Chien Hung ; Kang, Shih Ching ; Wang, Shang Yu ; Hsu, Yu Pao ; Lin, Being Chuan ; Yuan, Kuo Ching ; Kuo, I. Ming ; Ouyang, Chun Hsiang. / Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers. In: American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 31, No. 10. pp. 1432-1436.
@article{39533799b4ff4f7dbf8e12a707f1f02b,
title = "Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers",
abstract = "Introduction Patients with pelvic fracture usually require transfers to trauma centers for additional advanced treatment. Patient safety during the transfer should always be a priority. The noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) can reportedly provide a tamponade effect, which reduces hemorrhage. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of PCCD in patients with pelvic fracture who required transfer to trauma centers. Materials and Methods In the present study, we aimed to evaluate patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other hospitals. We investigated and compared the characteristics of these types of patients with and without pretransfer PCCD. We compared 2 groups (with and without pretransfer PCCD) of patients under different situations (unstable pelvic fracture, stable pelvic fracture, or indicated for transcatheter arterial embolization). We also analyzed the characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fracture who were initially evaluated as having stable pelvic fracture primarily before being transferred. Results During the 53-month period, we enrolled 585 patients in the study. The patients with unstable pelvic fractures who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (398.4 ± 417.6 mL vs 1954.5 ± 249.0 mL, P <.001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS; 6.6 ± 5.2 days vs 11.8 ± 7.7 days, P =.024), and shorter hospital LOS (9.4 ± 7.0 days vs 19.5 ± 13.7 days, P =.006) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. The stable patients who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (120.2 ± 178.5 mL vs 231.8 ± 206.2 mL, P =.018) and had shorter intensive care unit LOS (1.7 ± 3.3 days vs 3.4 ± 2.9 days, P =.029) and shorter hospital LOS (6.8 ± 5.1 days vs 10.4 ± 7.6 days, P =.018) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. Conclusion Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fracture who need to be transferred to trauma centers. Pretransfer PCCDs appeared to be a feasible and safe procedure during the transfer. In discussions between the referring physicians and the receiving physicians, we recommend using pretransfer PCCDs.",
author = "Fu, {Chih Yuan} and Wu, {Yu Tung} and Liao, {Chien Hung} and Kang, {Shih Ching} and Wang, {Shang Yu} and Hsu, {Yu Pao} and Lin, {Being Chuan} and Yuan, {Kuo Ching} and Kuo, {I. Ming} and Ouyang, {Chun Hsiang}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.044",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "1432--1436",
journal = "American Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0735-6757",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers

AU - Fu, Chih Yuan

AU - Wu, Yu Tung

AU - Liao, Chien Hung

AU - Kang, Shih Ching

AU - Wang, Shang Yu

AU - Hsu, Yu Pao

AU - Lin, Being Chuan

AU - Yuan, Kuo Ching

AU - Kuo, I. Ming

AU - Ouyang, Chun Hsiang

PY - 2013/10/1

Y1 - 2013/10/1

N2 - Introduction Patients with pelvic fracture usually require transfers to trauma centers for additional advanced treatment. Patient safety during the transfer should always be a priority. The noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) can reportedly provide a tamponade effect, which reduces hemorrhage. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of PCCD in patients with pelvic fracture who required transfer to trauma centers. Materials and Methods In the present study, we aimed to evaluate patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other hospitals. We investigated and compared the characteristics of these types of patients with and without pretransfer PCCD. We compared 2 groups (with and without pretransfer PCCD) of patients under different situations (unstable pelvic fracture, stable pelvic fracture, or indicated for transcatheter arterial embolization). We also analyzed the characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fracture who were initially evaluated as having stable pelvic fracture primarily before being transferred. Results During the 53-month period, we enrolled 585 patients in the study. The patients with unstable pelvic fractures who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (398.4 ± 417.6 mL vs 1954.5 ± 249.0 mL, P <.001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS; 6.6 ± 5.2 days vs 11.8 ± 7.7 days, P =.024), and shorter hospital LOS (9.4 ± 7.0 days vs 19.5 ± 13.7 days, P =.006) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. The stable patients who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (120.2 ± 178.5 mL vs 231.8 ± 206.2 mL, P =.018) and had shorter intensive care unit LOS (1.7 ± 3.3 days vs 3.4 ± 2.9 days, P =.029) and shorter hospital LOS (6.8 ± 5.1 days vs 10.4 ± 7.6 days, P =.018) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. Conclusion Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fracture who need to be transferred to trauma centers. Pretransfer PCCDs appeared to be a feasible and safe procedure during the transfer. In discussions between the referring physicians and the receiving physicians, we recommend using pretransfer PCCDs.

AB - Introduction Patients with pelvic fracture usually require transfers to trauma centers for additional advanced treatment. Patient safety during the transfer should always be a priority. The noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) can reportedly provide a tamponade effect, which reduces hemorrhage. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of PCCD in patients with pelvic fracture who required transfer to trauma centers. Materials and Methods In the present study, we aimed to evaluate patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other hospitals. We investigated and compared the characteristics of these types of patients with and without pretransfer PCCD. We compared 2 groups (with and without pretransfer PCCD) of patients under different situations (unstable pelvic fracture, stable pelvic fracture, or indicated for transcatheter arterial embolization). We also analyzed the characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fracture who were initially evaluated as having stable pelvic fracture primarily before being transferred. Results During the 53-month period, we enrolled 585 patients in the study. The patients with unstable pelvic fractures who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (398.4 ± 417.6 mL vs 1954.5 ± 249.0 mL, P <.001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS; 6.6 ± 5.2 days vs 11.8 ± 7.7 days, P =.024), and shorter hospital LOS (9.4 ± 7.0 days vs 19.5 ± 13.7 days, P =.006) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. The stable patients who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (120.2 ± 178.5 mL vs 231.8 ± 206.2 mL, P =.018) and had shorter intensive care unit LOS (1.7 ± 3.3 days vs 3.4 ± 2.9 days, P =.029) and shorter hospital LOS (6.8 ± 5.1 days vs 10.4 ± 7.6 days, P =.018) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. Conclusion Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fracture who need to be transferred to trauma centers. Pretransfer PCCDs appeared to be a feasible and safe procedure during the transfer. In discussions between the referring physicians and the receiving physicians, we recommend using pretransfer PCCDs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885318440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885318440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.044

DO - 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.044

M3 - Article

C2 - 23972479

AN - SCOPUS:84885318440

VL - 31

SP - 1432

EP - 1436

JO - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0735-6757

IS - 10

ER -