A comparison of pediatric and adult trauma patients transported by helicopter and ground EMS: managed-care considerations

Time-saving effects using helicopter transportation: comparison to a ground transportation time predicted using a social navigation software

Previous comparison studies regarding 2 types of transportation, helicopter (HEMS) versus ground emergency medical services (GEMS), have shown underlying heterogeneity as these options have completely different routes and consequent times with reference to one patient. To compare the 2 types of transportation on a case-by-case basis, we analyzed the retrospectively reviewed HEMS and predicted GEMS data using an open-source navigation software.Patients transferred by military HEMS from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. The HEMS records on the time of notification, injury point and destination address, and time required were reviewed. The GEMS data on distance and the predicted time required were acquired using open-source social navigation systems. Comparison analyses between the two types of transportation were conducted. Furthermore, linear logistic regression analyses were performed on the distance and time of the two options.A total of 183 patients were enrolled. There was no statistical difference (P = .3021) in the distance between the 2 types of transportation, and the HEMS time was significantly shorter than that of GEMS (61.31 vs 116.92 minutes, P < .001). The simple linear curves for HEMS and GEMS were separately secured, and two graphs presented the statistical significance (P) as well as reasonable goodness-of-fit (R2). In general, the HEMS graph demonstrates a more gradual slope and narrow distribution compared to that of GEMS.Ideally, HEMS is identified as a better transportation modality because it has a shorter transportation time (56 minutes saved) and a low possibility of potential time delays (larger R2). With a strict patient selection, HEMS can rescue injured or emergent patients who are "out of the golden hour."

Mortality following helicopter versus ground transport of injured children

INTRODUCTION

Injured children may be transported to trauma centers by helicopter air ambulance (HAA); however, a benefit in outcomes to this expensive resource has not been consistently shown in the literature and there is concern that HAA is over-utilized. A study that adequately controls for selection biases in transport mode is needed to determine which injured children benefit from HAA. The purpose of this study was to determine if HAA impacts mortality differently in minimally and severely injured children and if there are predictors of over-triage of HAA in children that can be identified.

METHODS

Children ≤18 years of age transported by HAA or ground ambulance (GA) from scene to a trauma center were identified from the 2010-2011 National Trauma Data Bank. Analysis was stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS) into low ISS (≤15) and high ISS (>15) groups. Following propensity score matching of HAA to GA patients, conditional multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine if transport mode independently impacted mortality in each stratum. Rates and predictors of over-triage of HAA were also determined.

RESULTS

Transport by HAA occurred in 8218 children (5574 low ISS, 2644 high ISS) and by GA in 35305 (30506 low ISS, 4799 high ISS). Overall mortality was greater in HAA patients (4.0 vs 1.4%, p<0.001). After propensity score matching, mortality was equivalent between HAA and GA for low ISS patients (0.2 vs 0.2%, p=0.82) but, for high ISS patients, mortality was lower in HAA (9.0 vs 11.1% p=0.014). On multivariable analysis, HAA was associated with decreased mortality in high ISS patients (OR=0.66, p=0.017) but not in low ISS patients (OR=1.13, p=0.73). Discharge within 24h of HAA transport occurred in 36.5% of low ISS patients versus 7.4% high ISS patients (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a national cohort adjusted for nonrandom assignment of transport mode, a survival benefit to HAA transport exists only for severely injured children with ISS >15. Many children with minor injuries are transported by helicopter despite frequent dismissal within 24h and no mortality benefit.

Evaluation of Dutch Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in transporting children

OBJECTIVE

In the Netherlands, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) function as an adjunct to paramedic ambulance service delivering hospital-level medical care to a prehospital location. The main goal of Dutch HEMS is to provide on-scene medical expertise and not primarily to serve as transport. The transportation of patients to specialized hospitals is sometimes mandatory, especially in cases of critically ill or wounded children. In the literature, no support can be found to support the safety of transportation by helicopter. We retrospectively evaluated the safety of this type of transportation and if any problems were encountered transporting children by helicopter.

METHODS

We reviewed our local HEMS database for all children (, 16 years) transported by helicopter to a level 1 trauma center between January 2007 and December 2012.

RESULTS

A total number of 430 patients were transported by helicopter to a hospital (0-87 years, mean 5 31.6 years). Of these patients, 83 (19%) were younger than 16 years (0-15.7 years, mean 5 6.6 years). Causes for HEMS transport in children varied, but the main groups were road traffic accidents (40%), cardiopulmonary arrests (15%), falls from height (12%), and horse riding accidents (7%). In the children group, 1 accidental extubation of the orotracheal tube was noted while lifting the patient (10 years old) into the helicopter. This was immediately noticed, and the patient was reintubated without complications. No further adverse events were encountered during transportation time. The accidental extubation is not a specific complication of helicopter transportation but is inextricably linked with moving severely injured and intubated patients/children.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that transporting children by helicopter is a safe method of transportation for critically ill children to adequately equipped medical centers.

Helicopter emergency medical service patient transport safe at night?

OBJECTIVE

Dutch helicopter emergency medical services are available 24/7. Working without daylight brings additional challenges, both in patient care and in-flight operation. We retrospectively evaluated the safety of this nighttime helicopter transportation of patients.

METHODS

Our helicopter emergency medical service database was reviewed for all patients transported by helicopter during nighttime. Both interhospital transports and patients transported from the accident location to a hospital were included. The time traveled by helicopter was compared with the time that road transportation of these patients would have taken.

RESULTS

In total, 513 patients were transported by helicopter. Of these patients, 72 were transported during nighttime (14%); the median age was 25.3 years (range, 1.1-73.9 years). The median flight time to the hospital was 16 minutes (range, 5-42 minutes). To travel by road, this would have taken a median of approximately 44 minutes (range, 23-100 minutes). When comparing these travel times, a significantly faster transport time by helicopter during nighttime was observed (P < .001). Three non-flight-specific incidents were noted.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that helicopter transportation of patients without daylight is safe and fast in a Dutch setting.

Transport mode to level I and II trauma centers and survival of pediatric patients with traumatic brain injury

The use of helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) for pediatric trauma patients is an issue of debate. We investigated the association of helicopter transport with survival of pediatric patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). We conducted a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients with TBI who were transported to level I and II trauma centers and were registered in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) between 2009 and 2011. We used regression techniques, integrating the results of propensity score matching, to investigate the association of helicopter transport with survival, in comparison with ground EMS. There were 15,704 pediatric patients with TBI who met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 3142 were transported via helicopters, and 12,562 via ground EMS. The mortality for children transported to level I trauma centers was 7.5% (183 deaths) for helicopter transport and 3.8% (337 deaths) for ground. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated an association of helicopter transport with increased survival (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.46; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.70%). This persisted after propensity score matching (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.25-2.52; ARR 2.73%). The mortality for children transported to level II trauma centers was 8.0% (52 deaths) for helicopter transport, and 4.4% (163 deaths) for ground. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated an association of helicopter transport with increased survival (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.30-4.25; ARR 5.36%). This again persisted after propensity score matching (OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.28-5.11; ARR 6.14). Pediatric patients with TBI transported to level I and II trauma centers had improved survival in comparison with similar patients transported via ground EMS.

Is paediatric trauma severity overestimated at triage? An observational follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Severe paediatric trauma is rare, and pre-hospital and local hospital personnel experience with injured children is often limited. We hypothesised that a higher proportion of paediatric trauma victims were taken to the regional trauma centre (TC).

METHODS

This is an observational follow-up study that involves one level I TC and seven local hospitals. We included paediatric (< 16 years) and adult (≥ 16-≤ 79 years) trauma patients with a driving distance to the TC > 30 minutes. The primary end-point was the proportion of trauma patients arriving in the TC.

RESULTS

We included 1934 trauma patients, 238 children and 1696 adults. A total of 33/238 children (13.9%) vs. 304/1696 adults (17.9%) were transported to the TC post-injury (P = 0.14). Among these, children were significantly less injured than adults [median Injury Severity Score (ISS) 9 vs. 14, P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of seriously injured trauma victims (ISS > 15) taken to the TC [8/11 (72.7%) vs. 139/182 (76.4%)]. The corresponding figures for ISS < 15 were 25/227 (11.0%) and 164/1509 (10.9%), respectively. No significant difference was found in intensive care unit length of stay or time to TC arrival. No paediatric vs. 36/1671 (2.2%) adult deaths were observed at 30-day follow-up (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the proportion of paediatric and adult trauma patients transported to the TC, neither overall nor among severely injured patients. Paediatric trauma patients admitted to the TC were, however, significantly less injured than adults.

Air medical response to traumatic brain injury: a computer learning algorithm analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of air medicine in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been studied extensively using trauma registries but remains unclear. Learning algorithms, such as artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), and decision trees, can identify relationships between data set variables but are not empirically useful for hypothesis testing.

OBJECTIVE

To use ANN, SVM, and decision trees to explore the role of air medicine in TBI.

METHODS

Patients with Head Abbreviated Injury Score 3+ were identified from our county trauma registry. Predictive models were generated using ANN, SVM, and decision trees. The three best-performing ANN models were used to calculate differential survival values (actual and predicted outcome) for each patient. In addition, predicted survival values with transport mode artificially input as "air" or "ground" were calculated for each patient to identify those who benefit from air transport. For SVM analysis, chi was used to compare the ratio of unexpected survivors to unexpected deaths for air- and ground-transported patients. Finally, decision tree analysis was used to explore the indications for various transport modes in optimized survival algorithms.

RESULTS

A total of 11,961 patients were included. All three learning algorithms predicted a survival benefit with air transport across all patients, especially those with higher Head Abbreviated Injury Score or Injury Severity Score values, lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores, or hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Air medical response in TBI seems to confer a survival advantage, especially in more critically injured patients.

Helicopter Scene Transport of Trauma Patients with Nonlife-Threatening Injuries: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Helicopters have become a major part of the modern trauma care system and are frequently used to transport patients from the scene of their injury to a trauma center. While early studies reported decreased mortality for trauma patients transported by helicopters when compared with those transported by ground ambulances, more recent research has questioned the benefit of helicopter transport of trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of patients transported by helicopter who have nonlife-threatening injuries.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed on peer-review research on helicopter utilization. The inclusion criteria were all studies that evaluated trauma patients transported by helicopter from the scene of their injury to a trauma center with baseline parameters defined by Injury Severity Score (ISS), Trauma Score (TS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and the likelihood of survival as determined via Trauma Score-Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology.

RESULTS

There were 22 studies comprising 37,350 patients that met the inclusion criteria. According to the ISS, 60.0% [99% confidence interval (CI): 54.5-64.8] of patients had minor injuries, According to the TS, 61.4% (99% CI: 60.8-62.0) of patients had minor injuries. According to TRISS methodology, 69.3% (99% CI: 58.5-80.2) of patients had a greater than 90% chance of survival and thus nonlife-threatening injuries. There were 25.8% (99% CI: -1.0-52.6) of patients discharged within 24 hours after arrival at the trauma center.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of trauma patients transported from the scene by helicopter have nonlife-threatening injuries. Efforts to more accurately identify those patients who would benefit most from helicopter transport from the accident scene to the trauma center are needed to reduce helicopter overutilization.