Suppr超能文献

直升机与地面紧急医疗服务用于重大创伤后的结局——倾向评分与工具变量分析:一项全国性回顾性队列研究

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

作者信息

Tsuchiya Asuka, Tsutsumi Yusuke, Yasunaga Hideo

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Health Economics, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 1130033, Japan.

Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Hospital Organization Mito Medical Center, 280, Sakuranosato, Ibarakimachi, Higahi-Ibarakigun, Ibaraki, 3113193, Japan.

出版信息

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Nov 29;24(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0335-z.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

由于缺乏随机对照试验以及现有观察性研究在方法学上的不足,对于严重创伤患者,直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)相较于地面紧急医疗服务(GEMS)的优势仍不明确。这项全国性回顾性队列研究的目的是比较由HEMS和GEMS转运的严重创伤成年患者的死亡率,并分析HEMS在不同亚组人群中的作用。

方法

利用日本创伤数据库,我们评估了2004年至2014年日间由HEMS或GEMS转运的所有损伤严重程度评分≥16的成年患者。我们使用倾向评分匹配、治疗逆概率加权和工具变量分析比较了由HEMS和GEMS转运的患者的院内死亡率,以调整已测量和未测量的混杂因素。

结果

来自192家医院的符合条件的患者(n = 21,286)包括4128例由HEMS转运的患者和17,158例由GEMS转运的患者。在倾向评分匹配模型中,HEMS组和GEMS组的院内死亡率存在显著差异(22.2%对24.5%,风险差 -2.3% [95%置信区间,-4.2至-0.5];需治疗人数,43 [95%置信区间,24至220])。治疗逆概率加权(20.8%对23.9%;风险差,-3.9% [95%置信区间,-5.7至-2.1];需治疗人数,26 [95%置信区间,17至48])和工具变量分析显示了相似的结果(风险差,-6.5% [95%置信区间,-9.2至-3.8];需治疗人数,15 [95%置信区间,11至27])。HEMS转运与跌倒、挤压伤、严重胸部损伤、肢体(包括骨盆)损伤以及到达急诊科时的创伤性心跳骤停后的较低院内死亡率显著相关。

结论

在调整已测量和未测量的混杂因素后,对于严重创伤成年患者,HEMS的死亡率显著低于GEMS。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ccb0/5129603/f826d5b35887/13049_2016_335_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验