Air Versus Ground Transport for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Does Transport Type Affect Patient Outcomes?

Air or Ground Transport to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit: Does It Really Matter?

OBJECTIVE

Critically ill patients requiring urgent interventions or subspecialty care often require transport over significant distances to tertiary care centers. The optimal method of transportation (air vs. ground) is unknown. We investigated whether air transport was associated with lower mortality for patients being transferred to a specialized critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all adult patients transferred to the CCRU at the University of Maryland Medical Center in 2018. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay and the time to the operating room (OR) for patients undergoing urgent procedures. We performed optimal 1:2 propensity score matching for each patient's need for air transport.

RESULTS

We matched 198 patients transported by air to 382 patients transported by ground. There was no significant difference between demographics, the initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or hospital outcomes between groups. One hundred sixty-four (83%) of the patients transported via air survived to hospital discharge compared with 307 (80%) of those transported by ground (P = .46). Patients transported via air arrived at the CCRU more quickly (127 [100-178] vs. 223 [144-332] minutes, P < .001) and were more likely (60 patients, 30%) to undergo urgent surgical operation within 12 hours of CCRU arrival (30% vs. 17%, P < .001). For patients taken to the OR within 12 hours of arriving at the CCRU, patients transported by air were more likely to go to the OR after 200 minutes since the transfer request (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The transportation mode used to facilitate interfacility transfer was not significantly associated with hospital mortality or the length of stay for critically ill patients.

Time-to-Treatment and Its Association With Complications and Mortality Rate in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Time-to-treatment is one of the most important factors affecting the complications and mortality rate in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The purpose of this study was to determine time-to-treatment and its association with complications and mortality rates in patients with acute myocardial infarction in selected hospitals in Zanjan, Iran.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was performed with 200 patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction in selected educational hospitals of Zanjan from June 2016 to March 2017. Parameters including the interval between pain onset and treatment, myocardial infarction complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality after the occurrence of myocardial infarction were collected through a special questionnaire and phone calls. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The longest time-to-treatment delay is related to prehospital time (mean, 330.68 [SD=411.55] minutes). Based on the results, the increase in the interval time between onset of pain and treatment (odds ratio: 1.001; 95% confidence interval, 1.000-1.002; P = 0.01), hypertension (odds ratio: 2.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-7.68; P = 0.02), and left coronary artery complete occlusion (odds ratio: 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-4.94; P < 0.001) were mortality predictor factors. Furthermore, the increase in the interval time between onset of pain and treatment (odds ratio: 1.001; 95% confidence interval, 1.000-1.002; P = 0.03), current smoking (odds ratio: 5.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.75-17.43; P = 0.004), and right coronary artery complete occlusion (odds ratio: 5.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-25.82; P = 0.02) were highly associated with the occurrence of heart failure.

DISCUSSION

Hypertension, smoking history, and delay in treatment time were highly associated with the occurrence of heart failure and mortality. Therefore, in Iranian society, education on primary and secondary prevention of myocardial infarction is recommended to reduce patient mortality.

Ground Same Intratransport Efficacy as Air for Acute Aortic Diseases

INTRODUCTION

Patients with acute aortic diseases (AAoD) usually require transfer to tertiary centers for possible surgical care, for which intratransport management represents important continuing spectrum of care. There is little information comparing intratransport efficacy of air (ART) vs ground transport (GRT), nor how effectively they manage these patients' pain. Our study aims to compare how effective ART and GRT manage patients' intratransport HR, pressure.

METHODS

Charts were reviewed of adult patients interhospital transferred to a quaternary academic center (UMMC) between 01/01/2011 and 09/30/2015. Outcomes were percentages of patients achieving target hemodynamic parameters, mortality.

RESULTS

We analyzed 226 patients, 58 (26%) transported by Air and 102 (45%) type A dissection. Ground transport was associated with higher percentage of patients with target HR 60-80 bpm comparing to ART (58% vs 43%, 95% CI 0.3-0.99). Both ART and GRT were associated with similar frequencies of patients achieving target SBP and adequate pain control. Time intervals from transfer request to surgery, and mortality were similar for both types of transport.

CONCLUSION

Ground transport teams were more successful at achieving predefined target heart rate than Air transport. Intra-transport management of other vital signs and pain were equally effectively between both Air and Ground transport.