Hilbert-Carius P, Struck MF, Hofer V, Hinkelbein J, Rognås L, Adler J, Christian MD, Wurmb T, Bernhard M, Hossfeld B. Mechanical ventilation of patients in helicopter emergency medical service transport: an international survey.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2020;
28:112. [PMID:
33208195 PMCID:
PMC7672415 DOI:
10.1186/s13049-020-00801-1]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2020] [Accepted: 10/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Mechanical ventilation in helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) environments is a procedure which carries a significant risk of complications. Limited data on the quality and performance of mechanical ventilation in HEMS are available in the literature.
METHOD
We conducted an international survey to evaluate mechanical ventilation infrastructure in HEMS and collect data of transported ventilated patients. From June 20-22, 2019, the participating HEMS bases were asked to provide data via a web-based platform. Vital parameters and ventilation settings of the patients at first patient contact and at handover were compared using non-parametric statistical tests.
RESULTS
Out of 215 invited HEMS bases, 53 responded. Respondents were from Germany, Denmark, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Austria and Switzerland. Of the HEMS bases, all teams were physician staffed, mainly anesthesiologists (79%), the majority were board certified (92.5%) and trained in intensive care medicine (89%) and had a median (range) experience in HEMS of 9 (0-25) years. HEMS may provide a high level of expertise in mechanical ventilation whereas the majority of ventilators are able to provide pressure controlled ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure modes (77%). Data of 30 ventilated patients with a median (range) age of 54 (21-100) years and 53% male gender were analyzed. Of these, 24 were primary missions and 6 interfacility transports. At handover, oxygen saturation (p < 0.01) and positive end-expiratory pressure (p = 0.04) of the patients were significantly higher compared to first patient contact.
CONCLUSION
In this survey, the management of ventilated HEMS-patients was not associated with ventilation related serious adverse events. Patient conditions, training of medical crew and different technical and environmental resources are likely to influence management. Further studies are necessary to assess safety and process quality of mechanical ventilation in HEMS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The survey was prospectively registered at Research Registry ( researchregistry2925 ).
Collapse