Brown Joshua B, Stassen Nicole A, Bankey Paul E, Sangosanya Ayodele T, Cheng Julius D, Gestring Mark L
+Strong Regional Trauma Center, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York 14642-8410, USA.
J Trauma. 2011 Feb;70(2):310-4. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182032b4f.
Helicopter transport (HT) is frequently used for interfacility transfer of injured patients to a trauma center. The benefits of HT over ground transport (GT) in this setting are unclear. By using a national sample, the objective of this study was to assess whether HT impacted outcomes following interfacility transfer of trauma patients.
Patients transferred by HT or GT in 2007 were identified using the National Trauma Databank (version 8). Injury severity, resource utilization, and survival to discharge were compared. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine whether transport modality was a predictor of survival after adjusting for covariates. Regression analysis was repeated in subgroups with Injury Severity Score (ISS)≤15 and ISS>15.
There were 74,779 patients transported by helicopter (20%) or ground (80%). Mean ISS was higher in patients transported by helicopter (17±11 vs. 12±9; p<0.01) as was the proportion with ISS>15 (49% vs. 28%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-2.63). Patients transported by helicopter had higher rates of intensive care unit admission (54% vs. 29%; OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.75-2.96), had shorter transport time (61±55 minutes vs. 98±71 minutes; p<0.01), and had shorter overall prehospital time (135±86 minutes vs. 202±132 minutes; p<0.01). HT was not a predictor of survival overall or in patients with ISS≤15. In patients with ISS>15, HT was a predictor of survival (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; p=0.01).
Patients transported by helicopter were more severely injured and required more hospital resources than patients transported by ground. HT offered shorter transport and overall prehospital times. For patients with ISS>15, HT was a predictor of survival. These findings should be considered when developing interfacility transfer policies for patients with severe injuries.
直升机转运(HT)常用于将受伤患者转运至创伤中心。在这种情况下,直升机转运相较于地面转运(GT)的优势尚不清楚。本研究旨在通过全国性样本评估直升机转运对创伤患者院间转运后的结局是否有影响。
利用国家创伤数据库(第8版)识别2007年通过直升机或地面转运的患者。比较损伤严重程度、资源利用情况及出院生存率。采用逐步逻辑回归分析,在调整协变量后确定转运方式是否为生存的预测因素。在损伤严重程度评分(ISS)≤15和ISS>15的亚组中重复进行回归分析。
共有74779例患者通过直升机(20%)或地面(80%)转运。直升机转运患者的平均ISS更高(17±11对12±9;p<0.01),ISS>15的比例也更高(49%对28%;优势比[OR],2.53;95%置信区间[CI],2.43 - 2.63)。直升机转运的患者重症监护病房入住率更高(54%对29%;OR,2.86;95% CI,2.75 - 2.96),转运时间更短(61±55分钟对98±71分钟;p<0.01),院前总时间也更短(135±86分钟对202±132分钟;p<0.01)。直升机转运总体上不是生存的预测因素,在ISS≤15的患者中也不是。在ISS>15的患者中,直升机转运是生存的预测因素(OR, 1.09;95% CI,1.02 - 1.17;p = 0.01)。
与地面转运的患者相比,直升机转运的患者损伤更严重,需要更多的医院资源。直升机转运提供了更短的转运时间和院前总时间。对于ISS>15的患者,直升机转运是生存的预测因素。在制定重伤患者院间转运政策时应考虑这些发现。