Abstract Background Aggressive epinephrine administration has growing support in the treatment of anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers are frequently in a position to provide the first care to someone experiencing an anaphylactic reaction. Intramuscular injection of epinephrine is the definitive pharmacologic treatment for many associated symptoms. While easy to use, epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) are prohibitively expensive, having increased in price ten-fold in ten years. Some states and EMS departments have begun expanding the scope of practice to allow Basic Life Support (BLS) providers, previously restricted to noninvasive therapies, to administer epinephrine by syringe. Objectives To compile a current and comprehensive list of how epinephrine is carried and used by EMS across the USA. Methods: An online survey focusing on anaphylaxis protocols and epinephrine administration was sent to state EMS medical directors and officials in all 50 states. Follow-up telephone calls were made to ensure compliance. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results Forty-nine of the 50 states in the USA provided a survey response. Texas responded but declined to participate in the survey because of practice variability across the state. In the other states, the form of epinephrine allowed or required on BLS ambulances was consistent with the scope of practice of their Basic Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Thirteen states had training programs to allow BLS providers to inject epinephrine; 7 were considering it; 29 were not. Twenty-seven states specified EAI as the only form of epinephrine required or allowed on their BLS ambulances. No states reported allowing any level of EMS provider below EMT to use alternatives to EAI. Conclusion This study confirms that many states have expanded the training of BLS providers to include the use of syringe injectable epinephrine. Even so, the majority of states relied on EAI in BLS ambulances. Abstract Introduction A recent analysis of the National Sample Project demonstrated that the mortality benefits of air medical transport do not extend to patients age 55 or older. The purpose of the current investigation was to evaluate mortality benefits of air transport in adult trauma patients ≥ 55 years of age. Methods A retrospective analysis of all adult patients greater than age 55 years directly transported from a trauma scene to a Level I or II facility was conducted. The primary outcome variable was in-hospital mortality. Using the imputed dataset we then performed multivariable logistic regression with mortality as the dependent variable to determine if mode of transport had a significant impact on mortality for patients older than 55 years of age. Results There were 7,739 (90.9%) patients transported by ground and 682 (9.1%) transported by air in our dataset. There were 3,556 between the ages of 55 to 69 years and an additional 4865 over the age of 69 years. In the multivariable model of all patients ≥ 55, air transport was associated with lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.39--0.91; p = 0.017) when compared to those transported by ground. Conclusion Our study was able to demonstrate a survival benefit for the cohort of patients age greater than 55 years of age. Abstract Objective The optimal resuscitation approach during the initial treatment of hypotensive trauma patients remains unknown, but some clinical trials have observed a survival benefit from restricting fluid administration prior to definitive hemorrhage control. We sought to characterize emergency medical services (EMS) protocols for the administration of intravenous fluids in this setting. Methods Publicly accessible statewide EMS protocols for the treatment of hypotensive trauma patients were included and characterized by: 1) goal of fluid administration, 2) dosing strategy, 3) maximum dose, 4) type of fluid, and 5) specific protocols for head trauma, if present. Results Of the 27 states with a publicly available, statewide protocol, 21 have a numeric systolic blood pressure (SBP) target for resuscitation. Of these, 16 describe a goal of maintaining SBP ≥90 mmHg with or without additional goals, three specify a goal that is less than 90 mmHg, and two specify a goal ≥100 mHg. Dosing strategies also vary and include both standard bolus strategies (200 mL, 250 mL, 500 mL, and 1 L with repeat) as well as weight-based strategies (20 mL/kg). Nine states specify a maximum dose of 2 L without medical control. Fifteen protocols recommend the use of normal saline, one recommends the use of lactated Ringer's, and 11 recommend the use of either normal saline or lactated Ringer's. Nine states have distinct protocols for patients with head trauma, all of which indicate maintaining a higher SBP than for trauma patients without head trauma. Conclusion State EMS protocols for fluid administration for hypotensive trauma patients vary in regard to SBP goal, fluid dose, and fluid type. Clinical trials to determine the optimal use of intravenous fluids for hypotensive trauma patients are needed to define the optimal approach. Autor: Howard A. Werman, Subrahmanyam Darbha, Michael Cudnik, Jeffrey Caterino Autor: Ian D. Brasted , BS, Michael W. Dailey, MD Autor: Sahil Dadoo,Joseph M. Grover, MD, Lukas G. Keil , MD, Kay S. Hwang, Jane H. Brice, MD, MPH, Timothy F. Platts-Mills, MD, MSc Do Trauma Patients Aged 55 and Older Benefit from Air Medical Transport? Basic Life Support Access to Injectable Epinephrine across the United States Prehospital Fluid Administration in Trauma Patients: A Survey of State Protocols