Emergencies in the sky: In-flight medical emergencies during commercial air transport

Characteristics of In-Flight Medical Emergencies on a Commercial Airline in Mainland China: Retrospective Study

Background

In-flight medical emergencies (IMEs) can have severe outcomes, including the deaths of passengers and aircraft diversions. Information is lacking regarding the incidence rate and characteristics of IMEs in most countries, especially in mainland China.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence, patterns, and associated risk factors of IMEs in mainland China and to provide medical suggestions for the evaluation and management of IMEs.

Methods

This population-based retrospective study examined electronic records for all IME reports between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, from a major airline company in mainland China. Outcome variables included the medical category of the IMEs, the outcomes of first aid, and whether or not the IMEs led to a flight diversion. We calculated the incidence rate and death rate of IMEs based on the number of passengers and flights, respectively. A logistic regression model was used to investigate the factors associated with aircraft diversions.

Results

A total of 199 IMEs and 24 deaths occurred among 447.2 million passengers, yielding an incidence rate of 0.44 (95% CI 0.39-0.51) events per million passengers and 66.56 (95% CI 50.55-86.04) events per million flights, and an all-cause mortality rate of 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.07) events per million passengers and 7.50 (95% CI 4.81-11.16) events per million flights. From 2018 to 2022, the highest incidence and mortality rates were observed in 2019 and 2020, respectively, while the lowest were in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Additionally, the highest incidence and mortality rates were observed between 6 PM to 6 AM and noon to 6 PM, respectively. There was a higher incidence rate of IMEs in the winter months. Moreover, the highest case-fatality rates were observed in 2019 (12/74, 16.2%), on flights traveling ≥4000 km (9/43, 20.9%), and on wide-body planes (10/52, 19.2%). Seizures (29/199, 14.6%), cardiac symptoms (25/199, 12.6%), and syncope or presyncope (19/199, 9.6%) were the most common medical problems and main reasons for aircraft diversion. The incidence of aircraft diversion was 42.50 (95% CI 37.02-48.12) events per million flights. Narrow-body planes (odds ratio [OR] 5.69, 95% CI 1.05-30.90), flights ≥4000 km (OR 16.40, 95% CI 1.78-151.29), and the months of December to February (OR 12.70, 95% CI 3.09-52.23), as well as the months of March to May (OR 23.21, 95% CI 3.75-143.43), were significantly associated with a higher risk of diversion.

Conclusions

The occurrence of and deaths associated with IMEs are rare in mainland China, but a temporal trend shows higher incidence rates at night and in winter. The leading IMEs are cardiac symptoms, seizures, and syncope. The establishment of a unified reporting system for IMEs and ground-to-air medical support are of great value for reducing IMEs and deaths in the global community.

A Comparison of In-flight and Ground-Based Emergency Medical Events on the Clinical Demand for Outreach Medical Services at Taoyuan International Airport, Taiwan

Background: Limited information is available covering all medical events managed by the airport-based outreach medical service. This study explores the clinical demand for emergency medical outreach services at Taoyuan International Airport (TIA), Taiwan.

Methods: Electronic medical records collected from TIA medical outreach services from 2017 to 2018, included passengers' profiles, flight information, events location, chief complaints, diagnosis (using ICD-9 -CM codes), and management outcomes. Medical events distribution was stratified by location and ages, and were compared statistically.

Results: Among 1,501 eligible records, there were 81.8% ground-based emergency medical events (GBME), 16.9% in-flight medical events (IFME) managed after scheduled landing, and 1.3% IFME leading to unscheduled diversion or re-entry to TIA. The top three GBME diagnoses were associated with neurological (23.3%), gastrointestinal (21.2%), and trauma-related (19.3%) conditions. The top three IFME diagnosis that prompted unscheduled landings via flight diversion or re-entry were neurological (47.4%), psychological (15.8%), and cardiovascular (10.5%). The chief complaints that prompted unscheduled landings were mostly related to neurological (42.1%), cardiovascular (26.3%), and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) (10.5%) symptoms. A higher frequency of IFME events due to dermatologic causes in patients aged ≤ 18 years compared with adults and older adults (19 vs. 1.5% and 0, respectively); and a higher frequency of IFME due to cardiovascular causes in adults ≥ 65 years compared with patients aged ≤ 65 (15.1 vs. 9%). Among all IFME patients, six out-of-hospital deaths occurred among passengers from scheduled landings and two deaths occurred among 18 IFME passengers who were transferred to local hospitals from flight diversion or re-entry. A statistically significant difference in outcomes and short-term follow-up status was found between patients with IFME and those with GBME (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Ground-based emergency medical events exceeded in-flight medical events at TIA. The most frequent events were related to neurological, gastrointestinal symptoms, or trauma. Results of this study may provide useful information for training medical outreach staff and preparing medical supplies to meet the clinical demand for airport medical outreach services.

Medical Events on Board Aircraft: Reducing Confusion and Misinterpretation in the Scientific Literature

INTRODUCTION: A topic in aviation medicine that attracts much attention from the scientific community as well as from the media concerns medical incidents on board commercial airline flights. It was noticed that many papers on the subject were written by authors whose specialization was outside that of aviation medicine and that they sometimes made basic errors concerning the application of scientific principles of the subject. A review was undertaken to determine if there were any patterns to the observed errors and, if so, to consider whether recommendations might be provided that could reduce their frequency.METHOD: A literature search was undertaken of MEDLINE using PubMed for English-only articles published between January 1, 1974, and February 1, 2019, employing the following search terms: air emergency, air emergencies, air passenger, air travel, aircraft, airline, aviation, commercial air, flight, and fitness to fly. In addition, other relevant papers held in the personal collection of the authors were reviewed.RESULTS: Many cases of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of aviation medicine were found, which could be classified into eight main categories: references; cabin altitude; pressure/volume relationship; other technical aspects of aircraft operations; regulations; medical events; in-flight deaths; and automated external defibrillator.CONCLUSION: Papers were identified as having questionable statements of fact or of emphasis. Such instances often appeared to result from authors being unfamiliar with the subject of aviation medicine and/or the commercial aviation environment. Simple steps could be taken by authors to reduce the future rate of such instances and recommendations are provided.Thibeault C, Evans AD. Medical events on board aircraft: reducing confusion and misinterpretation in the scientific literature. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(4):265273.

Knowledge, confidence and attitude of primary care doctors in managing in-flight medical emergencies: a cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Medical emergencies occur at a rate of one in 604‒753 flights. Doctors travelling on commercial flights may encounter an in-flight medical emergency requiring their assistance. There is a paucity of studies on how confident primary care doctors are in managing in-flight medical emergencies. This study aimed to determine the knowledge, confidence and attitude of primary care doctors in managing in-flight medical emergencies.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted on all primary care doctors working in government health clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from October 2016 to November 2016. A self-reported questionnaire was used, which included questions on demographic information, knowledge of in-flight medicine, and the attitude and confidence of primary care doctors in managing in-flight medical emergencies.

RESULTS

182 doctors completed the questionnaire (92.9% response rate). The mean knowledge score was 8.9 out of a maximum score of 20. Only 11.5% of doctors felt confident managing in-flight medical emergencies. The majority (69.2%) would assist in an in-flight medical emergency, but the readiness to assist was reduced if someone else was already helping or if they were not familiar with the emergency. Total knowledge score was positively associated with confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Only one in ten primary care doctors in this study felt confident managing in-flight medical emergencies. A higher total knowledge score of in-flight medical emergencies was positively associated with greater confidence in managing them. Educational programmes to address this gap in knowledge may be useful to improve doctors' confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies.

Relationships among Affect, Hardiness and Self-Efficacy in First Aid Provision by Airline Cabin Crew

Cabin crews being first responders, passengers' health assurance is also one of their main responsibilities. This study explored the association among first aid affect, work-related hardiness and self-efficacy of first aid, as well as the mediation role of work-related hardiness in airline cabin crews. Three self-reporting instruments were applied in this study: one was the first aid affect questionnaire, the second was a work-related hardiness questionnaire, the third was self-efficacy of the first aid questionnaire. Data were collected from 525 cabin crew members across five airlines in Taiwan (480 females and 45 males). The results showed that both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that three instruments had satisfactory validity and reliability. Positive significant relationships were found among cabin crews' first aid affect, work-related hardiness and self-efficacy of first aid. Cabin crews' commitment dimension of work-related hardiness turned out to be positively related to self-efficacy of first aid. In addition, the results of the study also revealed that cabin crews' work commitment plays a mediating role between their first aid affect and self-efficacy of first aid. To enhance the self-efficacy of first aid, it is necessary for the airlines to strengthen cabin crews' work commitment. Furthermore, fostering cabin crews' first aid affect is also one an important training goal.

On-board emergency medical equipment of European airlines

BACKGROUND

Medical emergencies frequently occur in commercial airline flights, but valid data on causes and consequences are rare. Therefore, optimal extent of onboard emergency medical equipment remains largely unknown. Whereas a minimum standard is defined in regulations, additional material is not standardized and may vary significantly between airlines.

METHODS

European airlines operating aircrafts with at least 30 seats were selected and interviewed with a 5-page written questionnaire including 81 items. Besides pre-packed and required emergency medical material, drugs, medical devices, and equipment lists were queried. If no reply was received, airlines were contacted up to three times by email and/or phone. Descriptive analysis was used for data interpretation.

RESULTS

From a total of 305 European airlines, 253 were excluded from analysis (e.g., no passenger transport). 52 airlines were contacted and data of 22 airlines were available for analysis (one airline was excluded due to insufficient data). A first aid kit is available on all airlines. 82% of airlines (18/22) reported to have a "doctor's kit" (DK) or an "Emergency Medical Kit" (EMK) onboard. 86% of airlines (19/22) provide identical equipment in all aircraft of the fleet, and 65% (14/22) airlines provide an automated external defibrillator.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas minimal required material according to European aviation regulations is provided by all airlines for medical emergencies, there are significant differences in availability of the additional material. The equipment of most airlines is not sufficient for treatment of specific emergencies according to published in-flight medical guidelines (e.g., for CPR or acute myocardial infarction).

In-flight cardiac arrest and in-flight cardiopulmonary resuscitation during commercial air travel: consensus statement and supplementary treatment guideline from the German Society of Aerospace Medicine (DGLRM)

By the end of the year 2016, approximately 3 billion people worldwide travelled by commercial air transport. Between 1 out of 14,000 and 1 out of 50,000 passengers will experience acute medical problems/emergencies during a flight (i.e., in-flight medical emergency). Cardiac arrest accounts for 0.3% of all in-flight medical emergencies. So far, no specific guideline exists for the management and treatment of in-flight cardiac arrest (IFCA). A task force with clinical and investigational expertise in aviation, aviation medicine, and emergency medicine was created to develop a consensus based on scientific evidence and compiled a guideline for the management and treatment of in-flight cardiac arrests. Using the GRADE, RAND, and DELPHI methods, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed. Specific recommendations have been developed for the treatment of IFCA. A total of 29 specific recommendations for the treatment and management of in-flight cardiac arrests were generated. The main recommendations included emergency equipments as well as communication of the emergency. Training of the crew is of utmost importance, and should ideally have a focus on CPR in aircraft. The decision for a diversion should be considered very carefully.

Should I stay or should I go? COPD and air travel

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a challenging respiratory problem throughout the world. Although survival is prolonged with new therapies and better management, the magnitude of the burden resulting from moderate-to-severe disease is increasing. One of the major aims of the disease management is to try to break the vicious cycle of patients being homebound and to promote an active lifestyle. A fundamental component of active daily life is, of course, travelling. Today, the world is getting smaller with the option of travelling by air. Air travel is usually the most preferred choice as it is easy, time saving, and relatively inexpensive. Although it is a safe choice for many passengers, the environment inside the aeroplane may sometimes have adverse effects on health. Hypobaric hypoxaemia due to cabin altitude may cause health risks in COPD patients who have limited cardiopulmonary reserve. Addressing the potential risks of air travel, promoting proactive strategies including pre-flight assessment, and education of COPD patients about the "fitness to fly" concept are essential. Thus, in this narrative review, we evaluated the current evidence for potential risks of air travel in COPD and tried to give a perspective for how to plan safe air travel for COPD patients.

International Flight Considerations

Combined with the rising number of passengers, and increased capacity of larger airplanes with more long-distance domestic and international flights, with long-haul aircrafts—such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 777 LR now capable of extending flight times to 18–20 h—it is likely that the incidence of in-flight medical emergencies will continue to increase in the coming years. International air travel in particular combines long-haul, extended flight times with unique exposures and an even more austere, secluded environment for passengers with acute and/or chronic illnesses, and suggests unique medical challenges for recognition, stabilization, treatment, diagnosis, and disposition.

Inflight Emergencies During Eurasian Flights

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the incidence and status of urgent medical conditions, the attitudes of health professionals who encounter such conditions, the adequacy of medical kits and training of cabin crew in data-received-company aircrafts suggested by Aerospace Medical Association, and the demographic data of patients.

METHODS

Data were collected from medical records of a major flight company from 2011 through 2013. All patients with complete records were included in the study. Numerical variables were defined as median and interquartiles (IQR) for median, while categorical variables were defined as numbers and percentage.

RESULTS

During the study period, 10,100,000 passengers were carried by the company flights, with 1,312 (0.013%) demands for urgent medical support (UMS). The median age of the passengers who requested UMS was 45 years (IQR: 29-62). Females constituted 698 (53.2%) among the patients, and 721 (55%) patients were evaluated by medical professionals found among passengers. The most common nontraumatic complaints resulting in requests for UMS were flight anxiety (311 patients, 23.7%) and dyspnea (145 patients, 11%). The most common traumatic complaint was burns (221 patients, 16.8%) resulting from trauma during flight. A total of 22 (1.67%) emergency landings occurred for which the most frequent reasons were epilepsy (22.7%) and death (18.2%). Deaths during flights were recorded in 13 patients, whose median age was 77 years (IQR: 69-82), which was significantly higher compared to the age of patients requiring UMS (p < 0.0001). A total of 592 (45%) patients did not require any treatment for UMS. Medical kits and training were found to be sufficient according to the symptomatic treatments.

CONCLUSION

Most of the urgent cases encountered during flights can be facilitated with basic medical support. "Traumatic emergency procedures inflight medical care" would be useful for additional training. Medical professionals as passengers are significantly involved in encountered emergency situations. Adding automated external defibrillator and pulse oximetry to recommended kits and training can help facilitate staff decisions such as emergency landings and tele-assistance.

Emergency medical equipment on board German airliners

BACKGROUND

Medical emergencies often occur on commercial airline flights, but valid data on their causes and consequences are rare. Therefore, it is unclear what emergency medical equipment is necessary. Although a minimum standard for medical equipment is defined in regulations, additional material is not standardized and may vary significantly between different airlines.

METHODS

German airlines operating aircrafts with more than 30 seats were selected and interviewed with a 5-page written questionnaire between August 2011 and January 2012. Besides pre-packed and required emergency medical material, drugs, medical devices, and equipment lists were queried. If no reply was received, airlines were contacted another three times by e-mail and/or phone. Descriptive analysis was used for data presentation and interpretation.

RESULT

From a total of 73 German airlines, 58 were excluded from analysis (eg, those not providing passenger transport). Fifteen airlines were contacted and data of 13 airlines were available for analysis (two airlines did not participate). A first aid kit was available on all airlines. Seven airlines reported having a doctor's kit, and another four provided an "emergency medical kit." Four airlines provided an automated external defibrillator (AED)/electrocardiogram (ECG). While six airlines reported providing anesthesia drugs, a laryngoscope, and endotracheal tubes, another four airlines did not provide even a resuscitator bag. One airline did not provide any material for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the minimal material required according to European aviation regulations is provided by all airlines for medical emergencies, there are significant differences in the provision of additional material. The equipment on most airlines is not sufficient for the treatment of specific emergencies according to published medical guidelines (eg, for CPR or acute myocardial infarction).