Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Mar;55(3):247-8. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.01.001.
The "golden hour" concept in trauma is pervasive despite little evidence to support it. WHAT QUESTION THIS STUDY ADDRESSED: Is there an association between various emergency medical services (EMS) intervals and in-hospital mortality in seriously injured adults? WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE: In 3,656 injured patients with substantial perturbations of vital signs or mental status, transported by 146 EMS agencies to 51 trauma centers across North America, no association was found among any EMS interval and mortality. HOW THIS MIGHT CHANGE CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study suggests that in our current out-of hospital and emergency care system time may be less crucial than once thought. Routine lights-and-sirens transport for trauma patients, with its inherent risks, may not be warranted.
尽管几乎没有证据支持，但创伤的“黄金时间”概念已经无处不在。 这项研究解决了什么问题：在生命体征或神志严重受损的 3656 名受伤成年人中，各种紧急医疗服务 (EMS) 时间间隔与院内死亡率之间是否存在关联？ 这项研究增加了我们的哪些知识：在北美 51 个创伤中心的 146 个 EMS 机构运送的 3656 名受伤患者中，没有发现任何 EMS 时间间隔与死亡率之间存在关联。 这将如何改变临床实践：这项研究表明，在我们当前的院外和急诊护理系统中，时间可能不像以前认为的那么关键。 对于创伤患者来说，常规的鸣笛和警灯运输及其固有的风险可能是不必要的。
