Helicopter evacuation of trauma victims in Los Angeles: does it improve survival?

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Background

Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.

Search Methods

The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.

Selection Criteria

The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.

Data Collection and Analysis

The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.

Main Results

The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

A scoping review of worldwide studies evaluating the effects of prehospital time on trauma outcomes

BACKGROUND

Annually, over 1 billion people sustain traumatic injuries, resulting in over 900,000 deaths in Africa and 6 million deaths globally. Timely response, intervention, and transportation in the prehospital setting reduce morbidity and mortality of trauma victims. Our objective was to describe the existing literature evaluating trauma morbidity and mortality outcomes as a function of prehospital care time to identify gaps in literature and inform future investigation.

MAIN BODY

We performed a scoping review of published literature in MEDLINE. Results were limited to English language publications from 2009 to 2020. Included articles reported trauma outcomes and prehospital time. We excluded case reports, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, comments, editorials, letters, and conference proceedings. In total, 808 articles were identified for title and abstract review. Of those, 96 articles met all inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Higher quality studies used data derived from trauma registries. There was a paucity of literature from studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with only 3 (3%) of articles explicitly including African populations. Mortality was an outcome measure in 93% of articles, predominantly defined as "in-hospital mortality" as opposed to mortality within a specified time frame. Prehospital time was most commonly assessed as crude time from EMS dispatch to arrival at a tertiary trauma center. Few studies evaluated physiologic morbidity outcomes such as multi-organ failure.

CONCLUSION

The existing literature disproportionately represents high-income settings and most commonly assessed in-hospital mortality as a function of crude prehospital time. Future studies should focus on how specific prehospital intervals impact morbidity outcomes (e.g., organ failure) and mortality at earlier time points (e.g., 3 or 7 days) to better reflect the effect of early prehospital resuscitation and transport. Trauma registries may be a tool to facilitate such research and may promote higher quality investigations in Africa and LMICs.

Does Direct Helicopter Retrieval Improve Survival of Severely Injured Trauma Patients From Rural Western Australia?

OBJECTIVE

In remote Western Australia, mortality from major trauma is more than 4 times higher than mortality rates from major trauma in the capital city of Perth. The objective of this study was to determine whether direct helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) retrieval from an incident scene within the zone 50 to 250 km of Perth to a tertiary hospital improves survival in severely injured trauma patients. Direct HEMS retrieval was compared with indirect retrieval whereby patients were transferred by ambulance to a nearby rural hospital before retrieval to a tertiary hospital in Perth.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis (2006-2015) was undertaken of all Western Australia trauma registries, and coronial data were collected for all major trauma patients who died before retrieval to a tertiary hospital in Perth.

RESULTS

A total of 1,374 major trauma patients (indirect retrieval = 1,031 and direct HEMS = 343) met the study inclusion criteria. There was a 51% increased risk of death in the indirect patients compared with the direct HEMS patients (15.3% vs. 10.2%, P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSION

Direct HEMS retrieval from the incident scene to a tertiary hospital substantially improves the chances of survival for severely injured trauma patients in rural locations in the zone 50 to 250 km of Perth.

Helicopter Transport Has Decreased Over Time and Transport From Scene or Hospital Matters

OBJECTIVE

Several reports have found helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) to be associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS); however, most studies did not control for transport time or stratify interfacility versus scene. We hypothesize that the HEMS transport rate has decreased nationally and that the risk of mortality for HEMS is similar to GEMS when adjusting for transport time and stratifying by scene or interfacility.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for adult patients transported by HEMS or GEMS. Multivariable logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

The HEMS transport rate decreased by 38.2% from 2010 to 2016 (P < .001). After controlling for known predictors of mortality and transport time, HEMS was associated with a decreased risk of mortality compared with GEMS for adult trauma patient transports (odds ratio = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.77; P < .001). Compared with GEMS, HEMS transports from the scene were associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66; P < .001), whereas HEMS interfacility transfer was associated with an increased risk of mortality (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The rate of HEMS transports in trauma has decreased by nearly 40% over the past 7 years. Our results suggest that HEMS use for scene transports is beneficial for the survival of trauma patients.

Severe blunt trauma in Finland and Estonia: comparison of two regional trauma repositories

Purpose

Evolving trauma system of Estonia has undergone several reforms; however, performance and outcome indicators have not been benchmarked previously. Thus, we initiated a baseline study to compare demographics, management and outcomes of severely injured patients between Southern Finland and Northern Estonia utilizing regional trauma repositories.

Methods

A comparison of data fields of the Helsinki University Hospital trauma registry (HTR) and trauma registry at the North Estonia Medical Centre in Tallinn (TTR) between 1/1/2015 and 31/12/2016 was performed. The inclusion criterion was Injury Severity Score > 15. Transferred patients, patients with penetrating injuries, and pediatric patients were excluded. The data for comparison included demographics, Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score (TRISS), mortality, and standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Primary outcome was mortality and SMR per TRISS methodology.

Results

During the 2-year study period, 324 patients from the HTR and 152 from the TTR were included. Demographic profile was similar between the repositories with the exception of severe abdominal injuries being more prevalent at the TTR (25.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.002). Predominant injury mechanism was non-ground level fall in both repositories. Mortality was similar at 14.5% and 13.6% at the TTR and HTR, respectively (adj. p = 0.762; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64–1.99). SMR was lower at the HTR compared to the TTR (0.65 vs. 0.77, p > 0.05), however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Benchmarking trauma repositories at a national level provides opportunities for quality and performance improvements. We observed comparable demographic profile and outcome indicators in the compared regional trauma systems.

Analysis of Transport to an American College of Surgeons Level I Trauma Center

INTRODUCTION

Efficient patient transportation by ground emergency medical services (GEMS) or helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) to a trauma center is vital for optimal care. We investigated differences between the modes of transport in terms of demographics, injury, scene location, and outcome.

SETTING

Morristown Medical Center (MMC), Morristown, NJ METHODS: All 903 trauma admissions in 2016 by advanced life support (ALS) to MMC, a Level I Trauma Center, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

22% of admissions were HEMS and 78% were GEMS. HEMS patients had higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS) (p<0.001); however, mortality and length of stay were not statistically different. The percentage of pediatric patients transported by HEMS that were discharged home after emergency department evaluation was greater than the older populations (p<0.001). Older age and higher ISS had the largest impact on mortality (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

We believe our current use of HEMS is adequate since patient outcomes between HEMS and GEMS was similar, even though HEMS patients have higher ISS. However, helicopter use in the pediatric population was over-utilized, possibly due to the scarcity of hospitals capable of managing pediatric traumas. Implementation of the Air Medical Prehospital Triage scoring system may also help correct for these unnecessary HEMS transports.

Clinical Interventions Account for Scene Time in a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in South Africa

INTRODUCTION

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) have been associated with a prolonged scene time, compromising the time benefit in an urban setting. Therefore, the clinical benefit offered through additional equipment, skills, and experience of HEMS crews must be investigated to propose the value of HEMS. This study aimed at establishing whether HEMS scene time was associated with the number of clinical interventions performed and improved patient stability.

METHOD

This retrospective, cross-sectional chart review included all primary HEMS cases from June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, from a South African helicopter service and extracted the number of clinical interventions and patient stability using the Mainz Emergency Evaluation Score (MEES). We correlated this with scene time using analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Five hundred fourteen clinical interventions were performed on 204 patients. A median of 2 clinical interventions per patient was performed on scene. Performing 1 additional clinical intervention was associated with an approximate 4-minute increase in on-scene time. Some improvement in patient stability was shown by a mean change in the MEES of 0.65 after on-scene intervention, but this did not reach MEES clinical cutoff measures.

CONCLUSION

The number of clinical interventions performed by helicopter crews can account for scene time in a South African HEMS. The clinical interventions performed by helicopter crews tend to have a positive effect on patient stability.

Helicopter Transport Use for Trauma Patients Is Decreasing Significantly Nationwide but Remains Overutilized

Rapid transfer of trauma patients to a trauma center for definitive management is essential to increase survival. The utilization of helicopter transportation for this purpose remains heavily debated. The purpose of this study was to characterize the trends in helicopter transportations of trauma patients in the United States over the last decade. Subjects with a primary mode of either ground or helicopter transportation were selected from the National Trauma Data Bank datasets 2007 to 2015. Over this period, the proportion of patients transported by a helicopter decreased significantly in a linear fashion from 17 per cent in 2007 to 10.2 per cent in 2015 ( P < 0.001). The overall mortality of this population was 7.6 per cent and remained unchanged over the study period ( P = 0.545). Almost 3 of 10 subjects (29.4%) transported by a helicopter had an Injury Severity Score <9. The proportion of elderly (>65 years) patients requiring helicopter transportation increased by 69.1 per cent, whereas their associated mortality decreased by 21.5 per cent. The use of a helicopter for the transportation of trauma patients has significantly decreased over the last decade without any significant change in mortality, possibly indicating more effective utilization of available resources. Overtriage of patients with minor injuries remained relatively unchanged.

Air Versus Ground Transportation in Isolated Severe Head Trauma: A National Trauma Data Bank Study

BACKGROUND

The effect of prehospital helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) on mortality has been analyzed previously in polytrauma patients with discordant results.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare outcomes in patients with isolated severe blunt traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) transported by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS).

METHODS

We conducted a National Trauma Data Bank study (2007-2014). All adult patients (≥16 years old) who sustained an isolated severe blunt TBI and were transported by HEMS or GEMS were included in the study.

RESULTS

There were 145,559 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 116,391 (80%) patients were transported via GEMS and 29,168 (20%) via HEMS. Median transportation time was longer for HEMS patients (41 vs. 25 min; p < 0.001). HEMS patients were more likely to have hypotension (2.7% vs. 1.5%; p < 0.001), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score < 9 (38.2% vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001), and head Abbreviation Injury Scale (AIS) score of 5 (20.1% vs. 9.7%; p < 0.001). Stepwise logistic regression analysis identified age ≥ 65 years old, male sex, hypotension, GCS score < 9, prehospital intubation, and head AIS scores 4 and 5 as independent predictors of mortality. Helicopter transportation was independently associated with improved survival (odds ratio [OR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.67; p < 0.001). Admission to a Level I trauma center was an independent predictor of survival (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.53-0.82; p = 0.001). Regardless of head AIS, helicopter transport was an independent predictor of survival (AIS 3: OR 0.35; p < 0.001; AIS 4: OR 0.44; p < 0.001; AIS 5: OR 0.76; p < 0.001). A prolonged transport time was not an independent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Helicopter transport, in adult patients with isolated severe TBI, is associated with improved survival.

Open Chest Wounds and Missed Injuries - A Really Opened Pandora's Box

The purpose of the study is to highlight the importance of systematic approach and investigation for identification of potential life threatening lesions to a serious injured patients with the presence of obvious other lesions. Material and method: A clinical case patient, with penetrating transfixing chest trauma, severe shock and respiratory distress. Results: HEMS emergency evacuation under aggressive resuscitation, to a regional trauma center. Further clinical examination, imagistic and complex biomarkers revealed cardiac, lung, spleen and spinal cord contusions. Emergency intervention practiced foreign body extraction, extensive exploration, regulate and surgical treatment of the wound trajectory. Two weeks later, the patient has been discharged from hospital without complications. Conclusions: 1. Patient with opened, penetrating chest trauma should be considered and managed as a life threatening situation but the assessment plan and the investigation strategy required should be extensive in order to identify all visceral both thoracic and abdominal tissues injuries, not only the life-threatening one, as cardiac contusion and spinal cord injuries. 2. Cardiac contusion is not a rare event, but a rare confirmed diagnosis, in association with other sources of shock or hypoxia, the result of traumatic complex of lesions, which include cardiac contusion, could thus impact on survival chances. 3. Air evacuation is, the first intention to assist such a patient in the trauma center.

Factors influencing on-scene time in a rural Norwegian helicopter emergency medical service: a retrospective observational study

Background

Critically ill patients need to be immediately identified, properly managed, and rapidly transported to definitive care. Extensive prehospital times may increase mortality in selected patient groups. The on-scene time is a part of the prehospital interval that can be decreased, as transport times are determined mostly by the distance to the hospital. Identifying factors that affect on-scene time can improve training, protocols, and decision making. Our objectives were to assess on-scene time in the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) in our region and selected factors that may affect it in specific and severe conditions.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study evaluated on-scene time and factors that may affect it for 9757 emergency primary missions by the three HEMSs in western Norway between 2009 and 2013, using graphics and descriptive statistics.

Results

The overall median on-scene time was 10 minutes (IQR 5–16). The median on-scene time in patients with penetrating torso injuries was 5 minutes (IQR 3–10), whereas in cardiac arrest patients it was 20 minutes (IQR 13–28). Based on multivariate linear regression analysis, the severity of the patient’s condition, advanced interventions performed, mode of transport, and trauma missions increased the on-scene time. Endotracheal intubation increased the OST by almost 10 minutes. Treatment prior to HEMS arrival reduced the on-scene time in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction.

Discussion

We found a short OST in preselected conditions compared to other studies. For the various patient subgroups, the strength of association between factors and OST varied. The time spent on-scene and its influencing factors were dependent on the patient’s condition. Our results provide a basis for efforts to improve decision making and reduce OST for selected patient groups.

Conclusions

The most important factors associated with increased on-scene time were the severity of the patient’s condition, the need for intubation or intravenous analgesic, helicopter transport, and trauma missions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-017-0442-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcomes after helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for major trauma--propensity score and instrumental variable analyses: a retrospective nationwide cohort study

Background

Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials and the methodological weakness of currently available observational studies, the benefits of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) over ground emergency medical services (GEMS) for major trauma patients remain uncertain. The aim of this retrospective nationwide cohort study was to compare the mortality of adults with serious traumatic injuries who were transported by HEMS and GEMS, and to analyze the effects of HEMS in various subpopulations.

Methods

Using the Japan Trauma Data Bank, we evaluated all adult patients who had an injury severity score ≥ 16 transported by HEMS or GEMS during the daytime between 2004 and 2014. We compared in-hospital mortality between patients transported by HEMS and GEMS using propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable analyses to adjust for measured and unmeasured confounding factors.

Results

Eligible patients (n = 21,286) from 192 hospitals included 4128 transported by HEMS and 17,158 transported by GEMS. In the propensity score-matched model, there was a significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between HEMS and GEMS groups (22.2 vs. 24.5%, risk difference −2.3% [95% confidence interval, −4.2 to −0.5]; number needed to treat, 43 [95% confidence interval, 24 to 220]). The inverse probability of treatment weighting (20.8% vs. 23.9%; risk difference, −3.9% [95% confidence interval, −5.7 to −2.1]; number needed to treat, 26 [95% confidence interval, 17 to 48]) and instrumental variable analyses showed similar results (risk difference, −6.5% [95% confidence interval, −9.2 to −3.8]; number needed to treat, 15 [95% confidence interval, 11 to 27]). HEMS transport was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality after falls, compression injuries, severe chest injuries, extremity (including pelvic) injuries, and traumatic arrest on arrival to the emergency department.

Conclusions

HEMS was associated with a significantly lower mortality than GEMS in adult patients with major traumatic injuries after adjusting for measured and unmeasured confounders.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0335-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in Traumatized Patients: Which Patient Benefits Most?

INTRODUCTION

The Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) was established for the prehospital trauma care of patients. Improved rescue times and increased coverage areas are discussed as specific advantages of HEMS. We recently found evidence that HEMS exerts beneficial effects on outcomes for severely injured patients. However, it still remains unknown which group of trauma patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue. Consequently, the unique aim of this study was to reveal which patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue.

METHODS

Trauma patients (ISS ≥9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2002 and 2012 were analysed using the TraumaRegister DGU. A multivariate regression analysis was used to reveal the survival benefit between different trauma populations.

RESULTS

The study included 52 281 trauma patients. Of these, 68.8% (35 974) were rescued by GEMS and 31.2% (16 307) by HEMS. HEMS patients were more severely injured compared to GEMS patients (ISS: HEMS 24.8±13.5 vs. GEMS 21.7±18.0) and more frequently suffered traumatic shock (SBP sys <90mmHg: HEMS 18.3% vs. GEMS 14.8%). However, logistic regression analysis revealed that HEMS rescues resulted in an overall survival benefit compared to GEMS (OR 0.81, 95% CI [0.75-0.87], p<0.001, Nagelkerke's R squared 0.526, area under the ROC curve 0.922, 95% CI [0.919-0.925]). Analysis of specific subgroups demonstrated that patients aged older than 55 years (OR 0.62, 95% CI [0.50-0.77]) had the highest survival benefit after HEMS treatment. Furthermore, HEMS rescue had the most significant impact after 'low falls' (OR 0.68, 95% CI [0.55-0.84]) and in the case of minor severity injuries (ISS 9-15) (OR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49-0.88]).

CONCLUSIONS

In general, trauma patients benefit from HEMS rescue with in-hospital survival as the main outcome parameter. Focusing on special subgroups, middle aged and older patients, low-energy trauma, and minor severity injuries had the highest survival benefit when rescued by HEMS. Further studies are required to determine the potential reasons of this benefit.

Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma

BACKGROUND

Although helicopters are presently an integral part of trauma systems in most developed nations, previous reviews and studies to date have raised questions about which groups of traumatically injured people derive the greatest benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport, compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) transport, is associated with improved morbidity and mortality for adults with major trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 29 April 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), four other sources, and clinical trials registers. We screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible trials included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized intervention studies. We also evaluated nonrandomized studies (NRS), including controlled trials and cohort studies. Each study was required to have a GEMS comparison group. An Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 15 or an equivalent marker for injury severity was required. We included adults age 16 years or older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We applied the Downs and Black quality assessment tool for NRS. We analyzed the results in a narrative review, and with studies grouped by methodology and injury type. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables in accordance with the GRADE Working Group criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 38 studies, of which 34 studies examined survival following transportation by HEMS compared with GEMS for adults with major trauma. Four studies were of inter-facility transfer to a higher level trauma center by HEMS compared with GEMS. All studies were NRS; we found no RCTs. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge. We calculated unadjusted mortality using data from 282,258 people from 28 of the 38 studies included in the primary analysis. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity and we could not determine an accurate estimate of overall effect.Based on the unadjusted mortality data from six trials that focused on traumatic brain injury, there was no decreased risk of death with HEMS. Twenty-one studies used multivariate regression to adjust for confounding. Results varied, some studies found a benefit of HEMS while others did not. Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-based analysis methods were used in 14 studies; studies showed survival benefits in both the HEMS and GEMS groups as compared with MTOS. We found no studies evaluating the secondary outcome, morbidity, as assessed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Four studies suggested a small to moderate benefit when HEMS was used to transfer people to higher level trauma centers. Road traffic and helicopter crashes are adverse effects which can occur with either method of transport. Data regarding safety were not available in any of the included studies. Overall, the quality of the included studies was very low as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the methodological weakness of the available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies, we could not determine an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS. Although some of the 19 multivariate regression studies indicated improved survival associated with HEMS, others did not. This was also the case for the TRISS-based studies. All were subject to a low quality of evidence as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria due to their nonrandomized design. The question of which elements of HEMS may be beneficial has not been fully answered. The results from this review provide motivation for future work in this area. This includes an ongoing need for diligent reporting of research methods, which is imperative for transparency and to maximize the potential utility of results. Large, multicenter studies are warranted as these will help produce more robust estimates of treatment effects. Future work in this area should also examine the costs and safety of HEMS, since multiple contextual determinants must be considered when evaluating the effects of HEMS for adults with major trauma.

Ankle Fractures and Modality of Hospital Transport at a Single Level 1 Trauma Center: Does Transport by Helicopter or Ground Ambulance Influence the Incidence of Complications?

In an era of concern over the rising cost of health care, cost-effectiveness of auxiliary services merits careful evaluation. We compared costs and benefits of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) with Ground Emergency Medical Service (GEMS) in patients with an isolated ankle fracture. A medical record review was conducted for patients with an isolated ankle fracture who had been transported to a level 1 trauma center by either HEMS or GEMS from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010. We abstracted demographic data, fracture grade, complications, and transportation mode. Transportation costs were obtained by examining medical center financial records. A total of 303 patients was included in the analysis. Of 87 (28.71%) HEMS patients, 53 (60.92%) had sustained closed injuries and 34 (39.08%) had open injuries. Of the 216 (71.29%) GEMS patients, 156 (72.22%) had closed injuries and 60 (27.78%) had open injuries. No significant difference was seen between the groups regarding the percentage of patients with open fractures or the grade of the open fracture (p = .07). No significant difference in the rate of complications was found between the 2 groups (p = 18). The mean baseline cost to transport a patient via HEMS was $10,220 + a $108/mile surcharge, whereas the mean transport cost using GEMS was $976 per patient + $16/mile. Because the HEMS mode of emergency transport did not significantly improve patient outcomes, health systems should reconsider the use of HEMS for patients with isolated ankle fractures.

Patient and trauma center characteristics associated with helicopter emergency medical services transport for patients with minor injuries in the United States

BACKGROUND

Helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) transport is expensive, and previous work has shown that cost-effective use of this resource is dependent on the proportion of minor injuries flown. To understand how overtriage to helicopter EMS versus ground EMS can be reduced, it is important to understand factors associated with helicopter transport of patients with minor injuries.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to characterize patient and hospital characteristics associated with helicopter transport of patients with minor injuries.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of adults ≥18 years who were transported by helicopter to Level I/II trauma centers from 2009 through 2010 as identified in the National Trauma Data Bank. Minor injuries were defined as all injuries scored at an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of <3. Patient and hospital characteristics associated of being flown with only minor injuries were compared in an unadjusted and adjusted fashion. Hierarchical, multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for patient demographics, mechanism of injury, presenting physiology, injury severity, urban-rural location of injury, total EMS time, hospital characteristics, and region.

RESULTS

A total of 24,812 records were identified, corresponding to 76,090 helicopter transports. The proportion of helicopter transports with only minor injuries was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 34% to 39%). Patient characteristics associated with being flown with minor injuries included being uninsured (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.47), injury by a fall (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.45), or other penetrating trauma (OR = 2.52, 95% CI = 2.12 to 3.00). Being flown with minor injuries was more likely if the patient was transported to a trauma center that also received a high proportion of patients with minor injuries by ground EMS (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.26) or a high proportion of EMS traffic by helicopter (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.78). No significant association with urban-rural scene location or EMS transport time was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Better recognizing which patients with falls and penetrating trauma have serious injuries that could benefit from being flown may lead to the more cost-effective use of helicopter EMS. More research is needed to determine why patients without insurance, who are most at risk for high out-of-pocket expenses from helicopter EMS, are at higher risk for being flown when only having minor injuries. This suggests that interventions to optimize cost-effectiveness of helicopter transport will likely require an evaluation of helicopter triage guidelines in the context of regional and patient needs.

Ten years of helicopter emergency medical services in Germany: do we still need the helicopter rescue in multiple traumatised patients?

BACKGROUND

Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) has been established in the preclinical treatment of multiple traumatised patients despite an ongoing controversy towards the potential benefit. Celebrating the 20th anniversary of TraumaRegister DGU(®) of the German Trauma Society (DGU) the presented study intended to provide an overview of HEMS rescue in Germany over the last 10 years analysing the potential beneficial impact of a nationwide helicopter rescue in multiple traumatised patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed TraumaRegister DGU(®) including multiple traumatised patients (ISS ≥ 16) between 2002 and 2012. In-hospital mortality was defined as main outcome. An adjusted, multivariate regression with 13 confounders was performed to evaluate the potential survival benefit.

RESULTS

42,788 patients were included in the present study. 14,275 (33.4%) patients were rescued by HEMS and 28,513 (66.6%) by GEMS. Overall, 66.8% (n=28,569) patients were transported to a level I trauma centre and 28.2% (n=12,052) to a level II trauma centre. Patients rescued by HEMS sustained a higher injury severity compared to GEMS (ISS HEMS: 29.5 ± 12.6 vs.

ISS GEMS

27.5 ± 11.8). Helicopter rescue teams performed more on-scene interventions, and mission times were increased in HEMS rescue (HEMS: 77.2 ± 28.7 min. vs. GEMS: 60.9 ± 26.9 min.). Linear regression analysis revealed that the frequency of HEMS rescue has decreased significantly between 2002 and 2012. In case of transportation to level I trauma centres a decrease of 1.7% per year was noted (p<0.001) while a decline of 1.6% per year (p<0.001) was measured for level II trauma centre admissions. According to multivariate logistic regression HEMS was proven a positive independent survival predictor between 2002 and 2012 (OR 0.863; 95%-CI 0.800-0.930; Nagelkerkes-R(2) 0.539) with only little differences between each year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was able to prove an independent survival benefit of HEMS in multiple traumatised patients during the last 10 years. Despite this fact, a constant decline of HEMS rescue missions was found in multiple trauma patients due to unknown reasons. We concluded that HEMS should be used more often in case of trauma in order to guarantee the proven benefit for multiple traumatised patients.

Prehospital versus Emergency Room Intubation of Trauma Patients in Qatar: A-2-year Observational Study

Background:

The impact of prehospital intubation (PHI) in improving outcome of trauma patients has not been adequately evaluated in the developing countries.

Aims:

The present study analyzed the outcome of PHI versus emergency room intubation (ERI) among trauma patients in Qatar.

Materials and Methods:

Data were retrospectively reviewed for all intubated trauma patients between 2010 and 2011. Patients were classified according to location of intubation (PHI: Group-1 versus ERI: Group-2). Data were analyzed and compared.

Results:

Out of 570 intubated patients; 482 patients (239 in group-1 and 243 in group-2) met the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 32 ΁ 14.6 years Head injury (P = 0.003) and multiple trauma (P = 0.004) were more prevalent in group-1, whereas solid organ injury predominated in group-2 (P = 0.02). Group-1 had significantly higher mean injury severity scoring (ISS), lower Glasgow coma scale (GCS), greater head abbreviated injury score and longer activation, response, scene and total emergency medical services times. The mortality was higher in group-1 (53% vs. 18.5%; P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that GCS [odds ratio (OR) 0.78, P = 0.005) and ISS (OR 1.12, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of mortality.

Conclusions:

PHI is associated with high mortality when compared with ERI. However, selection bias cannot be ruled out and therefore, PHI needs further critical assessment in Qatar.

Retrospective review of injury severity, interventions and outcomes among helicopter and nonhelicopter transport patients at a Level 1 urban trauma centre

BACKGROUND

Air ambulance transport for injured patients is vitally important given increasing patient volumes, the limited number of trauma centres and inadequate subspecialty coverage in nontrauma hospitals. Air ambulance services have been shown to improve patient outcomes compared with ground transport in select circumstances. Our primary goal was to compare injuries, interventions and outcomes in patients transported by helicopter versus nonhelicopter transport.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective 10-year review of 14 440 patients transported to an urban Level 1 trauma centre by helicopter or by other means. We compared injury severity, interventions and mortality between the groups.

RESULTS

Patients transported by helicopter had higher median injury severity scores (ISS), regardless of penetrating or blunt injury, and were more likely to have Glasgow Coma Scale scores less than 8, require airway control, receive blood transfusions and require admission to the intensive care unit or operating room than patients transported by other means. Helicopter transport was associated with reduced overall mortality (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.39). Patients transported by other methods were more likely to die in the emergency department. The mean ISS, regardless of transport method, rose from 12.3 to 15.1 (p = 0.011) during our study period.

CONCLUSION

Patients transported by helicopter to an urban trauma centre were more severely injured, required more interventions and had improved survival than those arriving by other means of transport.

Logistical concerns for helicopter emergency medical services response to the injured police officer

INTRODUCTION

Although infrequent, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) have been activated to transport police officers injured in the line of duty. The purpose of this study was to query current industry operating procedures in terms of law enforcement training and operations, specifically in terms of firearms restrictions and cotransport of injured officers and suspects.

METHODS

This is a survey-based study of air medical emergency medical services program managers in 2010. Descriptive statistics and the Fisher exact test were used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight programs (78.4%) reported transporting officers injured in the line of duty. Sixty-three respondents (85.1%) maintained a written policy addressing the presence of weapons aboard the aircraft; 58.8% of respondents replied that this restriction applied to sworn law enforcement personnel on active duty. Nearly a quarter of programs with written firearms policies have not informed the law enforcement agencies affected by these policies. Two programs reported having cotransported an injured officer and a suspect.

CONCLUSION

HEMS will continue to play an important role in the care and transportation of injured officers. HEMS programs may have specific policies that impact law enforcement operations. Open communication of these policies and interagency training are critical to effective interaction during high-stress incidents.

Cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for trauma scene transport in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine the minimum mortality reduction that helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) should provide relative to ground EMS for the scene transport of trauma victims to offset higher costs, inherent transport risks, and inevitable overtriage of patients with minor injury.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of helicopter versus ground EMS transport to a trauma center from a societal perspective during a patient's lifetime. We determined the mortality reduction needed to make helicopter transport cost less than $100,000 and $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with ground EMS. Model inputs were derived from the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma, National Trauma Data Bank, Medicare reimbursements, and literature. We assessed robustness with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Helicopter EMS must provide a minimum of a 15% relative risk reduction in mortality (1.3 lives saved/100 patients with the mean characteristics of the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma cohort) to cost less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a reduction of at least 30% (3.3 lives saved/100 patients) to cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Helicopter EMS becomes more cost-effective with significant reductions in patients with minor injury who are triaged to air transport or if long-term disability outcomes are improved.

CONCLUSION

Helicopter EMS needs to provide at least a 15% mortality reduction or a measurable improvement in long-term disability to compare favorably with other interventions considered cost-effective. Given current evidence, it is not clear that helicopter EMS achieves this mortality or disability reduction. Reducing overtriage of patients with minor injury to helicopter EMS would improve its cost-effectiveness.

Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients

INTRODUCTION

Physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a well-established component of prehospital trauma care in Germany. Reduced rescue times and increased catchment area represent presumable specific advantages of HEMS. In contrast, the availability of HEMS is connected to a high financial burden and depends on the weather, day time and controlled visual flight rules. To date, clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of HEMS in terms of improved clinical outcome has remained elusive.

METHODS

Traumatized patients (Injury Severity Score; ISS≥9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2007 and 2009 were analyzed using the TraumaRegister DGU® of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. Only patients treated in German level I and II trauma centers with complete data referring to the transportation mode were included. Complications during hospital treatment included sepsis and organ failure according to the criteria of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) consensus conference committee and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.

RESULTS

A total of 13,220 patients with traumatic injuries were included in the present study. Of these, 62.3% (n=8,231) were transported by GEMS and 37.7% (n=4,989) by HEMS. Patients treated by HEMS were more seriously injured compared to GEMS (ISS 26.0 vs. 23.7, P<0.001) with more severe chest and abdominal injuries. The extent of medical treatment on-scene, which involved intubation, chest and treatment with vasopressors, was more extensive in HEMS (P<0.001) resulting in prolonged on-scene time (39.5 vs. 28.9 minutes, P<0.001). During their clinical course, HEMS patients more frequently developed multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (HEMS: 33.4% vs. GEMS: 25.0%; P<0.001) and sepsis (HEMS: 8.9% vs. GEMS: 6.6%, P<0.001) resulting in an increased length of ICU treatment and in-hospital time (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that after adjustment by 11 other variables the odds ratio for mortality in HEMS was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.636 to 862).

CONCLUSIONS

Although HEMS patients were more seriously injured and had a significantly higher incidence of MODS and sepsis, these patients demonstrated a survival benefit compared to GEMS.

Impact of a physician-staffed helicopter on a regional trauma system: a prospective, controlled, observational study

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to compare the trauma system before and after implementing a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service (PS-HEMS). Our hypothesis was that PS-HEMS would reduce time from injury to definitive care for severely injured patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, controlled, observational study, involving seven local hospitals and one level I trauma centre using a before and after design. All patients treated by a trauma team within a 5-month period (1 December 2009-30 April 2010) prior to and a 12-month period (1 May 2010-30 April 2011) after implementing a PS-HEMS were included. We compared time from dispatch of the first ground ambulance to arrival in the trauma centre for patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Secondary end points were the proportion of secondary transfers and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

We included 1788 patients, of which 204 had an ISS > 15. The PS-HEMS transported 44 severely injured directly to the trauma centre resulting in a reduction of secondary transfers from 50% before to 34% after implementation (P = 0.04). Median delay for definitive care for severely injured patients was 218 min before and 90 min after implementation (P < 0.01). The 30-day mortality was reduced from 29% (16/56) before to 14% (21/147) after PS-HEMS (P = 0.02). Logistic regression showed PS-HEMS had an odds ratio (OR) for survival of 6.9 compared with ground transport.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a PS-HEMS was associated with significant reduction in time to the trauma centre for severely injured patients. We also observed significantly reduced proportions of secondary transfers and 30-day mortality.

Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma

BACKGROUND

Although helicopters are presently an integral part of trauma systems in most developed nations, previous reviews and studies to date have raised questions about which groups of traumatically injured patients derive the greatest benefit.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review is to determine if helicopter emergency medical services transport (HEMS) is associated with improved morbidity and mortality, compared to ground emergency medical services transport (GEMS), for adults with major trauma. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were run in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), SCI-EXPANDED, CPCI-S, and ZETOC in January 2012. Relevant websites were also searched, including controlled trials registers, HSRProj, the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP, and OpenSIGLE. Searches were not restricted by date, language, or publication status. Attempts were made to contact authors in the case of missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible trials included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised intervention studies. Non-randomised studies (NRS), including controlled trials and cohort studies, were also evaluated. Each study was required to have a GEMS comparison group. An injury severity score (ISS) > 15 or an equivalent marker for injury severity was required. Only adults aged 16 years or older were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The Downs and Black quality assessment tool was applied for NRS. The results were analysed in a narrative review, and with studies grouped by methodology and injury type. A predefined subgroup was comprised of four additional studies that examined the role of HEMS versus GEMS for inter-facility transfer. Summary of findings tables were constructed in accordance with the GRADE Working Group criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the entry criteria for this review. Four additional studies met the criteria for a separate, predefined subgroup analysis of patients transferred to trauma centres by HEMS or GEMS. All studies were non-randomised studies; no RCTs were found. Survival at hospital discharge was the primary outcome. Data from 163,748 people from 21 of the 25 studies included in the primary analysis were available to calculate unadjusted mortality. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed and an accurate estimate of overall effect could not be determined. Based on the unadjusted mortality data from five trials that focused on traumatic brain injury, there was no decreased risk of death with HEMS (relative risk (RR) 1.02; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.23). Nine studies used multivariate regression to adjust for confounding, the five largest indicated a statistically significant increased odds of survival associated with HEMS. All Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-based studies indicated improved survival in the HEMS group as compared to the Major Trauma Outcomes Study (MTOS) cohort; some studies showed survival benefits in both the HEMS and GEMS groups as compared to MTOS. No studies were found to evaluate the secondary outcome of morbidity as assessed by QALYs and DALYs. All four studies suggested a positive benefit when HEMS was used to transfer patients to higher level trauma centres. Overall, the quality of the included studies was very low as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the methodological weakness of the available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies, an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS could not be determined. Although five of the nine multivariate regression studies indicated improved survival associated with HEMS, the remainder did not. All were subject to a low quality of evidence as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria due to their non-randomised design. Similarly, TRISS-based studies, which all demonstrated improved survival, cannot be considered strong evidence because of their methodology, which did not randomize the use of HEMS. The question of which elements of HEMS may be beneficial for patients has not been fully answered. The results from this review provide motivation for future work in this area. This includes an ongoing need for diligent reporting of research methods, which is imperative for transparency and to maximise the potential utility of results. Large, multicentre studies are warranted as these will help produce more robust estimates of treatment effects. Future work in this area should also examine the costs and safety of HEMS, since multiple contextual determinants must be considered when evaluating the effects of HEMS for adults with major trauma.

The effect of prehospital time related variables on mortality following severe thoracic trauma

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study is firstly to analyse the impact of prehospital time related variables on mortality, in a specific subset of HEMS patients and secondly to demonstrate any interactions between time related variables and factors taking place in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 688 consecutive London HEMS transfers with severe thoracic trauma and mean injury severity score (ISS) of 35, during a 9-year period (1994-2002). We have analysed the effect of the following time related variables on mortality: activation time, arrival on scene time (AoS), stay on scene time (SoS), total time (ToT), rush-hour time (RhT) and leisure-hour time (LhT). We have also investigated the interaction of the above mentioned variables with observations and interventions taken place on scene and at accident and emergency department (A&E) following adjustment for type and severity of injury. For statistical analysis the time variables were grouped into quintiles.

RESULTS

Six hundred eighty eight victims (510 males) with mean age of 38.5 ± 17.5 had total survival rate of 59.6%. The mean AoS and SoS were 11.6 ± 5.8 min and 36.6 ± 16.8 min, respectively. ToT>65 min, as in quintiles III, IV and V with mean ToT of 65.3 min, 74.9 min and 102.7 min respectively, had an influence on mortality with calculated adjusted OR of 1.37 (95%CI=0.47-3.94), 3.36 (95%CI = 1.22-9.23) and 1.43 (95%CI = 0.52-3.92) respectively with concomitant adjustment for type of injury, severity of injury, age, physiological variables on scene and on scene emergency thoracotomy (ET). ET on scene was an independent predictor for mortality (OR 3.94, 95%CI = 1.03-15.06). SoS of more than 34 min can lead to harmful changes on patients' pathophysiological status. ISS has no significant effect on AoS or SoS. RhT and LhT have no significant effect on mortality and they did not influence the AoS and SoS.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that time related variables have a complex and heterogeneous effect on mortality. Thoracic trauma victims usually have high ISS, in such population, ToT <65 min may be associated with lower possibility of death. Neither AoS nor SoS was influenced by time of incident or severity of injury.

Impact of prehospital mode of transport after severe injury: a multicenter evaluation from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing controversy about the relative effectiveness of air medical versus ground transportation for severely injured patients. In some systems, air medical crews may provide a higher level of care but may require longer transport times. We sought to evaluate the impact of mode of transport on outcome based on analysis of data from two randomized trials of prehospital hypertonic resuscitation.

METHODS

Injured patients were enrolled based on prehospital evidence of hypovolemic shock (systolic blood pressure ≤70 mm Hg or systolic blood pressure = 71-90 mm Hg with heart rate ≥108 bpm) or severe traumatic brain injury (TBI; Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8). Patient demographics, injury severity, and physiology were compared based on mode of transport. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the impact of mode of transport on 24-hour and 28-day survival for all patients and 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Scale for patients with TBI, adjusting for differences in injury severity.

RESULTS

Included were 2,049 patients, of which 703 (34%) were transported by air. Patients transported by air were more severely injured (mean Injury Severity Score, 30.3 vs. 22.8; p < 0.001), more likely to be in the TBI cohort (70% vs. 55.4%; p < 0.001), and more likely blunt mechanism (94.0% vs. 78.1%; p < 0.001). Patients transported by air had higher rates of prehospital intubation (81% vs. 36%; p < 0.001), received more intravenous fluids (mean 1.3 L vs. 0.8 L; p < 0.001), and had longer prehospital times (mean 76.1 minutes vs. 43.5 minutes; p < 0.001). Adjusted analysis revealed no significant impact of mode of transport on survival or 6-month neurologic outcome (air transport-28-day survival: odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.51; 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Scale score ≤4: odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.31).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the adjusted clinical outcome according to mode of transport. However, air medical transported more severely injured patients with more advanced life support procedures and longer prehospital time.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Helicopter rescue involving the winching of a physician

INTRODUCTION

We sought to study the operational and medical aspects of helicopter rescue missions involving the use of a winch.

SETTING

A single helicopter-based medical service of a pre-alpine region of Switzerland.

METHODS

We prospectively studied consecutive primary rescue interventions involving winching of a physician, from October 1, 1998 to October 1, 2002. Demographic, medical and operational aspects as well as outcome at 48 hours were analyzed.

RESULTS

We included 133 patients. Most (74%) were male, with traumatic injuries (77%). The median scene time of the nine severely injured patients (Injury Severity Scale [ISS] > 15) was significantly longer compared with the other patients (54 vs 37 minutes; P < .05). The main medical procedures performed were orotracheal intubation (n = 5), fracture reductions (n = 5), major analgesia with sedation (n = 4), and intravenous fluid administration of more than 1,500 mL (n = 4). Fourteen (10%) patients suffering from minor injuries were triaged by the physician and not airlifted to the hospital. All 133 patients were alive at 48 hours. Sixty-nine (52%) were still hospitalized. No secondary interhospital transfer was required.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides a better knowledge of injury profile, medical aspects, and outcomes of patients rescued necessitating a winching procedure.