• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

城市 1 级创伤中心的紧急医疗服务转运时间与创伤结局:院前紧急医疗服务反应评估。

Emergency Medical Service Transport Time and Trauma Outcomes at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center: Evaluation of Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Response.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, 14506Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Department of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

出版信息

Am Surg. 2022 Jun;88(6):1090-1096. doi: 10.1177/0003134820988827. Epub 2021 Jan 31.

DOI:10.1177/0003134820988827
PMID:33517710
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) for trauma patients has been debated since its introduction. We aim to compare outcomes for trauma patients transported by ground EMS (GEMS) vs. HEMS using raw and adjusted mortality in a level 1 trauma center.

METHODS

A 6-year retrospective cohort study utilizing our level 1 trauma center registry for patients transferred by GEMS or HEMS was performed. Demographics and outcome measures were compared. Raw and adjusted mortality was evaluated. Adjusted mortality was determined incorporating confounders, including patient demographics, comorbid conditions, mechanism of injury, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and EMS transport time. Chi-square, multivariable logistic regression, and independent sample T-test were utilized with significance, defined as < .05.

RESULTS

Of 12 633 patients, 10 656 were transported via GEMS and 1977 with HEMS. Mean age was 55 for GEMS and 40 for HEMS ( < .001). Mean ISS was 9.29 and 11.73 for GEMS and HEMS ( < .001). Mean Revised Trauma Score was higher (less severe) for GEMS vs. HEMS (7.6 vs. 7.12, < .001). Mean transport times for GEMS and HEMS was 39.45 vs. 47.29 minutes ( = .02). Raw mortality was 2.55% (307/10 656) for GEMS and 6.78% (134/1977) for HEMS. Adjusted mortality revealed a 16.6% increased mortality for GEMS compared to HEMS (adjusted odds ratio = 1.166, 95% CI: .815-1.668).

CONCLUSIONS

Air-lifted trauma patients were younger, more severely injured, and more hemodynamically unstable and required longer transport time but experienced lower adjusted mortality. Future research is needed to investigate whether reducing transport times and augmenting the advanced care already implemented by HEMS crews can improve outcomes.

摘要

背景

自直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)推出以来,一直存在关于创伤患者使用 HEMS 的争论。我们旨在比较在一级创伤中心使用地面紧急医疗服务(GEMS)与 HEMS 转运创伤患者的结局,使用原始和校正死亡率进行比较。

方法

对利用我们的一级创伤中心登记处接受 GEMS 或 HEMS 转运的患者进行了一项为期 6 年的回顾性队列研究。比较了人口统计学和结局指标。评估了原始和校正死亡率。校正死亡率通过纳入混杂因素来确定,包括患者人口统计学、合并症、损伤机制、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、格拉斯哥昏迷评分和 EMS 转运时间。采用卡方检验、多变量逻辑回归和独立样本 T 检验,显著性定义为 <.05。

结果

在 12 633 例患者中,10 656 例通过 GEMS 转运,1977 例通过 HEMS 转运。GEMS 组的平均年龄为 55 岁,HEMS 组为 40 岁( <.001)。GEMS 组和 HEMS 组的平均 ISS 分别为 9.29 和 11.73( <.001)。GEMS 组的修订创伤评分较高(较轻),而 HEMS 组则较低(7.6 对 7.12, <.001)。GEMS 组和 HEMS 组的平均转运时间分别为 39.45 分钟和 47.29 分钟( =.02)。GEMS 组的原始死亡率为 2.55%(307/10 656),HEMS 组为 6.78%(134/1977)。校正死亡率显示,与 HEMS 相比,GEMS 的死亡率增加了 16.6%(校正优势比=1.166,95%可信区间:0.815-1.668)。

结论

空运创伤患者更年轻,损伤更严重,血流动力学更不稳定,转运时间更长,但调整后的死亡率较低。需要进一步研究,以探讨是否可以减少转运时间并增强 HEMS 人员已经实施的高级护理,以改善结局。

相似文献

1
Emergency Medical Service Transport Time and Trauma Outcomes at an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center: Evaluation of Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Response.城市 1 级创伤中心的紧急医疗服务转运时间与创伤结局:院前紧急医疗服务反应评估。
Am Surg. 2022 Jun;88(6):1090-1096. doi: 10.1177/0003134820988827. Epub 2021 Jan 31.
2
Prehospital Time Following Traumatic Injury Is Independently Associated With the Need for In-Hospital Blood and Early Mortality for Specific Injury Types.创伤后急救前时间与特定损伤类型的院内用血需求和早期死亡率独立相关。
Air Med J. 2024 Jan-Feb;43(1):47-54. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Nov 28.
3
Speed is not everything: Identifying patients who may benefit from helicopter transport despite faster ground transport.速度并非一切:确定那些尽管地面转运速度更快但可能从直升机转运中获益的患者。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Apr;84(4):549-557. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001769.
4
Outcomes after helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for major trauma--propensity score and instrumental variable analyses: a retrospective nationwide cohort study.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
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Nov 29;24(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0335-z.
5
Trauma patient transport to hospital using helicopter emergency medical services or road ambulance in Sweden: a comparison of survival and prehospital time intervals.瑞典使用直升机紧急医疗服务或公路救护车将创伤患者转运至医院:生存和院前时间间隔比较。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2023 Dec 16;31(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13049-023-01168-9.
6
Helicopters and injured kids: Improved survival with scene air medical transport in the pediatric trauma population.直升机与受伤儿童:儿科创伤人群通过现场空中医疗转运提高了生存率。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 May;80(5):702-10. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000971.
7
Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients.直升机紧急医疗服务与地面紧急医疗服务相比对创伤患者的生存益处。
Crit Care. 2013 Jun 21;17(3):R124. doi: 10.1186/cc12796.
8
Helicopter transport improves survival following injury in the absence of a time-saving advantage.在不存在节省时间优势的情况下,直升机转运可提高受伤后的生存率。
Surgery. 2016 Mar;159(3):947-59. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.015. Epub 2015 Oct 23.
9
External validation of the Air Medical Prehospital Triage score for identifying trauma patients likely to benefit from scene helicopter transport.用于识别可能从现场直升机转运中获益的创伤患者的空中医疗院前分诊评分的外部验证。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Feb;82(2):270-279. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001326.
10
Ten years of helicopter emergency medical services in Germany: do we still need the helicopter rescue in multiple traumatised patients?德国直升机紧急医疗服务十年:对于多处创伤患者,我们仍需要直升机救援吗?
Injury. 2014 Oct;45 Suppl 3:S53-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.08.018.

引用本文的文献

1
Lasting Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Missions.新冠疫情对院前急救任务的长期影响。
Open Access Emerg Med. 2023 Sep 18;15:325-332. doi: 10.2147/OAEM.S425272. eCollection 2023.
2
EMS Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids to Pediatric Asthma Patients: An Analysis by Severity and Transport Interval.急救医疗服务系统中全身皮质类固醇对儿科哮喘患者的应用:基于严重程度和转运时间的分析。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2023;27(7):900-907. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2023.2234996. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
3
The Pathophysiology and Management of Hemorrhagic Shock in the Polytrauma Patient.
多发伤患者失血性休克的病理生理学与处理
J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 19;10(20):4793. doi: 10.3390/jcm10204793.