Suppr超能文献

直升机与地面救护车在危重症儿童机构间转运中的比较。

Helicopter versus ground ambulance transport for interfacility transfer of critically ill children.

机构信息

Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America; UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.

Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania and STAT MedEvac, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Nov;61:44-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.032. Epub 2022 Aug 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Following initial stabilization, critically ill children often require transfer to a specialized pediatric hospital. While the use of specialized pediatric transport teams has been associated with improved outcomes for these patients, the additional influence of transfer mode (helicopter or ground ambulance) on clinical outcomes remains unknown.

METHODS

We investigated the association between transport mode and outcomes among critically ill children transferred to a single pediatric hospital via a specialized pediatric transport team. We designed a retrospective cohort study to reduce indication bias by limiting analysis to patients for whom a helicopter transport was initially requested. We compared outcomes for those who ultimately traveled via helicopter, and for those who ultimately traveled via ground ambulance due to non-clinical factors.

RESULTS

We compared transport times, in-hospital mortality, and hospital length of stay by transport mode. Transport time in minutes was shorter for helicopter transports (median = 143, interquartile range [IQR]: 118-184) compared to ground ambulance transports (median = 289, IQR: 213-258; difference in medians = 146, 95% CI: 12 to 168, p < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis, helicopter transport was not associated with a difference in in-hospital mortality (helicopter = 6.0%, ground ambulance = 7.0%; 95% CI for difference: -6.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.64) but was associated with a statistically significant reduction in median hospital days (helicopter = 4, ground ambulance = 5; 95% CI -3 to 0; p = 0.04). In adjusted analyses, there were no statistically significant associations. These results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill pediatric patients without traumatic injuries transported by a specialty team, those patients who would have been transferred by helicopter if available but were instead transferred by ground ambulance reached their site of definitive care approximately 2.5 h later. Helicopter transport for these patients was not associated with in-hospital mortality, but was potentially associated with reduced hospital length of stay.

摘要

背景

在初始稳定后,危重症儿童通常需要转至专门的儿科医院。尽管使用专门的儿科转运团队已被证明可改善这些患者的结局,但转运方式(直升机或地面救护车)对临床结局的额外影响尚不清楚。

方法

我们研究了通过专门的儿科转运团队转至单一儿科医院的危重症儿童的转运方式与结局之间的关联。我们设计了一项回顾性队列研究,通过限制对最初要求直升机转运的患者进行分析,以减少适应证偏倚。我们比较了最终通过直升机转运和因非临床因素最终通过地面救护车转运的患者的结局。

结果

我们比较了不同转运方式的转运时间、院内死亡率和住院时间。直升机转运的分钟数较短(中位数=143,四分位距[IQR]:118-184),而地面救护车转运的分钟数较长(中位数=289,IQR:213-258;中位数差值=146,95%CI:12-168,p<0.001)。在未调整分析中,直升机转运与院内死亡率无差异(直升机=6.0%,地面救护车=7.0%;95%CI差值:-6.6%至 3.3%;p=0.64),但与中位数住院天数的显著减少相关(直升机=4,地面救护车=5;95%CI:-3 至 0;p=0.04)。在调整分析中,没有统计学显著关联。这些结果在敏感性分析中一致。

结论

在无创伤性损伤的危重症儿科患者中,由专业团队转运,如果有直升机可用,这些患者本应通过直升机转运,但实际上通过地面救护车转运,他们到达最终治疗地点的时间约晚 2.5 小时。对于这些患者,直升机转运与院内死亡率无关,但可能与住院时间缩短有关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验