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