A comparison of the association of helicopter and ground ambulance transport with the outcome of injury in trauma patients transported from the scene. One year's trauma mortality experience at Brooke Army Medical Center: is aeromedical transportation of trauma patients necessary? The impact of advanced prehospital emergency care on the mortality of severely brain-injured patients. Factors improving survival in multisystem trauma patients. The effect of air medical transport on survival after trauma in Johannesburg, South Africa. Association of direct helicopter versus ground transport and in-hospital mortality in trauma patients: a propensity score analysis. Helicopter transport and blunt trauma mortality: a multicenter trial. The impact of a rotorcraft aeromedical emergency care service on trauma mortality. Helicopter evacuation of trauma victims in Los Angeles: does it improve survival? Impact of helicopter transport and hospital level on mortality of polytrauma patients. Air medical scene response to blunt trauma: effect on early survival. [The influence of transportation mode on mortality in polytraumatized patients. An analysis based on the German Trauma Registry]. Effects of 2 patterns of prehospital care on the outcome of patients with severe head injury. Helicopters and the civilian trauma system: national utilization patterns demonstrate improved outcomes after traumatic injury. Helicopters improve survival in seriously injured patients requiring interfacility transfer for definitive care. Impact of emergency medical helicopter service on mortality for trauma in north-east Italy. A regional prospective audit. The impact of aeromedical response to patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Air versus ground transport of the major trauma patient: a natural experiment. Air versus ground transport of major trauma patients to a tertiary trauma centre: a province-wide comparison using TRISS analysis. Influence of prehospital treatment on the outcome of patients with severe blunt traumatic brain injury: a single-centre study. Reduced mortality in injured adults transported by helicopter emergency medical services. A comparison of ground paramedics and aeromedical treatment of severe blunt trauma patients. Effect of helicopter transport of trauma victims on survival in an urban trauma center. Emergency medical services intervals and survival in trauma: assessment of the "golden hour" in a North American prospective cohort. Effects of London helicopter emergency medical service on survival after trauma.
Comprehensive emergency medical services and helicopter aeromedical transport systems have been developed based on the principle that early definitive care improves outcome. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between patients transported by helicopter and those transported by ground.
                Data were obtained from the North Carolina Trauma Registry for the period between 1987 and 1993 on all patients transported by helicopter and ground admitted to one of the eight state designated trauma centers. Study patients included only those who were transported directly from the scene of injury to the trauma center (interhospital transfers were excluded). Mortality (outcome) was compared after patient stratification by injury severity and transport time, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics and logistic regression-derived probabilities of survival.
                One thousand three hundred forty-six patients (7.3% of the total) were transported from scene to trauma center by helicopter and 17,144 were transported by ground. In patients transported by helicopter, the mean Trauma Score was lower (12 +/- 3.6) versus 14.3 +/- 3.6 (p < 0.001) and the mean Injury Severity Score was higher (17 +/- 11.1) versus 10.8 +/- 8.4 (p < 0.001). A trend toward increased survival was observed among patients transported by helicopter with a higher Injury Severity Score. Statistical significance was achieved only for patients with a Trauma Score between 5 and 12 and Injury Severity Score between 21 and 30.
                The large majority of trauma patients transported by both helicopter and ground ambulance have low injury severity measures. Outcomes were not uniformly better among patients transported by helicopter. Only a very small subset of patients transported by helicopter appear to have any chance of improved survival based on their helicopter transport. This study suggests that further effort should be expended to try to better identify patients who may benefit from this expensive and risky mode of transport. The purpose of this study was to review whether air ambulance transportation of trauma patients to the Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) level I trauma center contributed to maintaining national mortality standards in the trauma care of these patients. Aeromedical transportation is considered a standard-of-care component of regional trauma systems throughout the United States. Pooled trauma database information from 792 consecutive ambulance-transported trauma patients received at BAMC during the fiscal year from October 1, 1995, to September 30, 1996, were reviewed. The 792 trauma patients were composed of 687 patients transported by ground ambulance and 105 patients who received helicopter aeromedical evacuation. Aeromedical evacuation was associated with increased levels of prehospital medical care and faster transportation than ground ambulance service. The mortality rates (immediate, early, and late deaths) of both ambulance groups were compared with national mortality standards using the internationally recognized Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology, based on the Major Trauma Outcome Study in 1986 and validated in 1992. The Z test for independent populations demonstrated no statistically significant difference between BAMC trauma mortality rates for either ambulance group compared with national trauma mortality rates. The results suggest that aeromedical evacuation of the more severely injured patients farthest from the BAMC trauma center resulted in mortality rates that met national standards. The mortality of 128 consecutive severely brain-injured patients (Glasgow Coma Score less than or equal to 8) treated by a land advanced life support system and transported to a trauma center was compared to the mortality of 104 consecutive severely brain-injured patients treated during the same time period by an advanced care rotorcraft aeromedical emergency service and transported to the same trauma center. The two patient groups had statistically similar distribution of CNS lesions and Glasgow Coma Scores. The mortality of the patients treated by the land ALS system was 40%. The mortality of the patients treated by the aeromedical service was 31%. The 9% reduction in mortality in the patients treated by the aeromedical service was statistically significant (p less than 0.001). There was also a statistically significant (p less than 0.05) reduction in the Glasgow Outcome Scores of the patients treated by the aeromedical service compared with patients treated by the land advanced life support system. This report analyzes the effect of air versus ground interhospital transport on survival following multisystem injury. There were 136 air-transported patients versus 194 ground-transported patients. The groups were similar in trauma scores, ages, mechanism of injury, and organ systems injured. There was a statistically significant survival advantage for air-transported patients with trauma scores between 10 and 5 (82.8% survival vs. 53.5%, p = less than 0.001). The time interval between accident and admission to the authors' institution was similar for both groups. Important therapeutic interventions contributing to better survival by the air-transported group included higher incidences of endotracheal intubation (50% vs. 25%), blood transfusions (32% vs. 10%), larger volumes of electrolyte fluid (3.3 L per patient vs. 2.1 L per patient) as well as the use of MAST trousers (60.3% vs. 34.9%). Transport charges for both ground and air services were similar. However, helicopter charges met only 15% of the operational budget of the aeromedical service. The remainder of the costs were generated from hospital patient revenues. Overall, total hospital charges were similar for both groups and were influenced by the variability of length of stay, particularly for orthopedic patients. To assess the difference in survival of trauma patients transported to a trauma unit via either road or air in Johannesburg, South Africa.
                Prospective database analysis.
                Multicentre study utilising two trauma units.
                The study evaluated 428 subjects admitted to the two sites.
                Actual survival rates in each group (road and air) were compared with the predicted survival rates.
                In the road group, 38.96 people were predicted to die and 51 actually died, therefore 23.61% (or 12.04 people) died 'unnecessarily', i.e. they died after having been predicted to live. In the helicopter group, 38.15 people were predicted to die and 39 actually died, therefore 0.85 (39-38.15) people were not expected to die. The 0.85 people represent 2.18% (0.85/39) of the total number of dead in the helicopter group who died 'unnecessarily'. Therefore one could argue that introduction of helicopter transport reduces the number of dead by 21.43% (23.61-2.18).
                Patients with a certain injury severity are more likely to survive if transported by air to a trauma unit. Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport of trauma patients has been used for decades. Its use, however, is still a subject of debate, including issues such as high costs, increasing numbers of crashes, and conflicting results regarding effectiveness in reducing mortality. The aim of this study was to examine whether mode of transport (HEMS vs. ground EMS) is independently associated with mortality among trauma patients transported directly from the scene of injury to definitive care.
                All trauma patients transported directly to a Level I or Level II trauma center by either air or ground EMS over a 4-year period were selected from the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop propensity scores based on variables measured at the scene of injury. The propensity scores represented the predicted probabilities of a patient being transported by HEMS given a specific set of characteristics and were used as a composite confounding variable in subsequent models of the association of mortality and mode of transport. Along with the propensity scores, Injury Severity Scores (ISS), initial Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and distance from the trauma center were included in a Cox proportional hazards model of the association of mode of transport and 24-hour and 2-week mortality.
                Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for 2-week mortality in patients transported by HEMS was 33% lower (HR = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.84) than in patients transported by ground EMS from the scene of injury, after adjustment for the propensity score and other covariates. In subanalyses, the apparent association of a reduction in the hazard of early mortality among patients transported by HEMS was most evident for patients with an RTS based on injury scene vital signs of 3 to 7 (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.82). The point estimate of the HR was similar (HR = 0.65 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.2) in the 75% of cases who had normal vital signs at the scene of injury, although it was no longer statistically significant because crude mortality was very low (1.7%) in this group. Among those with a RTS of 3 or less at the scene, crude mortality was 58%, and mode of transport was not associated with mortality (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.6).
                Helicopter EMS transport was associated with a decreased hazard of mortality among certain patients transported from the scene of injury directly to definitive care. Refinements in scene triage and transport guidelines are needed to more effectively select patients that may benefit from HEMS transport from those unlikely to benefit.
                © 2011 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Despite many studies addressing potential impact of helicopter transport on trauma mortality, debate as to the efficacy of air transport continues.
                This retrospective study combined trauma registry data from five urban Level I adult and pediatric centers. Logistic regression assessed effect of helicopter transport on mortality while adjusting for age, sex, transport year, receiving hospital, prehospital level of care (Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support), ISS, and mission type (scene vs. interfacility).
                The study database comprised 16,699 patients. Crude mortality for Air (9.4%) was 3.4 times (95% CI, 2.9-4.0, p < 0.001) that of Ground (3.0%) patients. In adjusted analysis, helicopter transport was found to be associated with a significant mortality reduction (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; p = 0.031).
                The results of this study are consistent with an association between helicopter transport mode and increased survival in blunt trauma patients. The mortality of 150 consecutive trauma patients treated at the site of injury and transported to a trauma center by standard land prehospital care services was compared with that of 150 consecutive trauma patients treated at the site of injury and transported to the same trauma center by a rotorcraft aeromedical service staffed by a physician and nurse. A statistical analysis designed to predict mortality based on injury severity revealed that the mortality of the land group was statistically no different from that of a large index trauma patient population treated at a major trauma center. There was a 52% reduction in predicted mortality of the aeromedical group, which was highly significant. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the method of transport after injury and survival among trauma patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma facility in Los Angeles, California.
                The trauma registry of LAC+USC Medical Center was reviewed to identify all injured patients evacuated by emergency medical service (EMS) from the injury scene from 1998 to 2007. The study population was divided into those who were airlifted (HEMS) and those who were transported by ground emergency medical service (GEMS) with transportation time that exceeded 30 minutes (GEMS > 30 minutes).
                During the 10-year study period, 1,836 patients were airlifted (helicopters for emergency medical service (HEMS)) and 1,537 patients were ground transported (GEMS > 30 minutes). HEMS patients suffered more frequently a penetrating injury (19% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), presented more often hypotensive to the emergency department (4% vs. 1%, p < 0.001), had more frequently a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < or = 8 (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.001) and required more often an intubation at the injury scene (1.6% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001). However, the transportation time and the total prehospital time were significantly shorter for airlifted patients. After multivariable analysis, the difference in mortality between the two transport modalities was not significant (adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval, 0.72 (0.22, 2.35); p = 0.596).
                In a metropolitan Los Angeles trauma system, EMS helicopter transportation of injured patients does not appear to improve overall adjusted survival after injury. There is however a potential benefit for severely injured subgroups of patients due to the shorter prehospital times. Despite numerous studies analyzing this topic, specific advantages of helicopter transport of blunt polytrauma patients as compared with ground ambulances have not yet been identified unequivocally.
                Four possible pathways in 403 polytrauma patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 16) who were in reach of the helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) Dresden were analyzed as follows: HEMS-UNI group (n = 140), transfer by HEMS into a university hospital; AMB-REG group (n = 102), transfer by ground ambulance into a regional (Level II or III) hospital; AMB-UNI group (n = 70), transfer by ground ambulance into the university hospital; and INTER group (n = 91), transfer by ground ambulance into a regional hospital, followed by transfer to the university hospital. Scores used were the ISS and the TRISS. Tests used for statistical analysis included chi2 and Fisher's tests. Statistical significance was set at p > 0.05.
                Age, gender, and mean ISS (range, 33.3-35.6) revealed extensive homogeneity of the groups. Mortality of the AMB-REG group was almost doubled (41.2%) compared with HEMS-UNI (22.1%) patients (p = 0.002). The AMB-UNI group displayed the lowest mortality (15.7%, p = not significant). TRISS analysis (PRE-Chart) revealed identical outcome for AMB-UNI and HEMS-UNI patients. Rescue time averaged 90 +/- 29 minutes for HEMS-UNI patients, 68 +/- 25 minutes for AMB-UNI patients, and 69 +/- 26 minutes for the AMB-REG group.
                Primary transfer by HEMS into a Level I trauma center reduces mortality markedly. In principle, this benefit can be attributed to superior preclinical therapy, primary admission to a Level I trauma center, or both. However, the identical probability of survival of the AMB-UNI and HEMS-UNI groups in this and comparable studies does not confirm generally better survival rates on account of a more aggressive on-site approach. nan Thirty years after its introduction in Germany, the benefits of the helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) compared to ground ambulances (GA) still remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of helicopter transport on rescue time and mortality based on the data of the German Trauma Registry.
                Data from patients with multiple injuries were documented prospectively between 1993 and 2003 in different trauma centers in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and The Netherlands. From these data, patients with an injury severity score (ISS)<16 were excluded. Patients who were transported to the hospital without a physician were also excluded. The data from included patients were evaluated for time to hospital and influence of transportation service on mortality.
                A total of 7,534 patients with multiple injuries were included. Of these, 3,870 patients were transported by HEMS and 3,664 reached the hospital by GA. There were 74.9% male patients in the HEMS group, and 71.3% male patients in the GA group. The mean ISS was higher in the HEMS group (31.4 vs 30.7; P<0.01); patients transported by GA were older (HEMS: 39.2; NEF:41.3; P<0.01). The GA arrived on the scene after 14.33 min, the HEMS after 18.18 min (P<0.01). Time at the scene was longer in the HEMS group (HEMS: 26:26 min; NEF: 22:29 min; P<0.01). Intubation rate in the HEMS group was about 80%, while patients transported by GA were intubated in 60% of cases. The overall mortality was 30.9%. Evaluation of the TRISS prediction of survival showed a benefit for patients transported with HEMS. In a multivariate analysis, intubated patients with ISS<or=60 had a lower mortality rate if transported with HEMS (NEF: 40.1%; HEMS 34.9%; P<0.01).
                Only minor differences in age and ISS were found between the groups. The time between the accident and arrival of the physician was longer in the HEMS group. The HEMS group also remained on the scene for longer, but had a higher rate of intervention. According to our analysis of the German Trauma Registry, patients with multiple injuries benefit from HEMS transportation. A pattern of prehospital care combining advanced life support, physician staffing, and helicopter transport improves the outcome of patients with severe brain injuries, compared with combined expanded basic life support, nurse staffing, and ground transport.
                Inception cohort from the data set of a population-based, prospective study on major trauma.
                Prehospital and hospital trauma systems of an Italian region.
                All patients with major trauma (Injury Severity Score, >or=16) and severe head injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale score for the head, >or=4) rescued alive from March 1, 1998, to February 28, 1999, who received either form of care. Patients with self-inflicted injuries were excluded. The 184 patients who met the entry criteria were divided equally between care groups.
                None.
                Mortality at 30 days and Glasgow Outcome Scale score of survivors.
                After verifying the comparability of the cohorts, no survival or disability benefit could be demonstrated (95% confidence interval [CI] of the odds ratio for mortality [helicopter/ambulance] [95% CI 1], 0.72 to 2.67; 95% CI of the difference in Glasgow Outcome Scale score medians between helicopter and ambulance groups [95% CI 2], 0.0 to 0.0). Similar results were derived from analyses restricted to the subgroups identified by low (<or=90 mm Hg) roadside systolic blood pressure (95% CI 1, 0.58 to 7.17; 95% CI 2, -1 to 2) and by need for urgent neurosurgical intervention (95% CI 1, 0.16 to 2.60; 95% CI 2, 0 to 2). Exclusion from the ambulance group of victims rescued in urban areas did not change the results (95% CI 1, 0.80 to 3.24; 95% CI 2, 0.0 to 0.0). Stratification by age, Injury Severity Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale score demonstrated a small survival benefit (95% CI 1, 1.12 to 2.12) in the ambulance subgroup with Glasgow Coma Scale score from 10 to 12. Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed that the group did not affect mortality.
                This study was conceived to emphasize the supposed advantages of the combined helicopter, physician, and advanced life-support rescue. No increased benefit compared with the simpler rescue group could be demonstrated. The role of helicopter transport (HT) in civilian trauma care remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare patient outcomes after transport from the scene of injury by HT and ground transport using a national patient sample.
                Patients transported from the scene of injury by HT or ground transport in 2007 were identified using the National Trauma Databank version 8. Injury severity, utilization of hospital resources, and outcomes were compared. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine whether transport modality was a predictor of survival or discharge to home after adjusting for covariates.
                There were 258,387 patients transported by helicopter (16%) or ground (84%). Mean Injury Severity Score was higher in HT patients (15.9 ± 12.3 vs. 10.2 ± 9.5, p < 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with Injury Severity Score >15 (42.6% vs. 20.8%; odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.76-2.89). HT patients had higher rates of intensive care unit admission (43.5% vs. 22.9%; OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.53-2.64) and mechanical ventilation (20.8% vs. 7.4%; OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.21-3.40). HT was a predictor of survival (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.27) and discharge to home (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07) after adjustment for covariates.
                Trauma patients transported by helicopter were more severely injured, had longer transport times, and required more hospital resources than those transported by ground. Despite this, HT patients were more likely to survive and were more likely to be discharged home after treatment when compared with those transported by ground. Despite concerns regarding helicopter utilization in the civilian setting, this study shows that HT has merit and impacts outcome. Helicopter transport (HT) is frequently used for interfacility transfer of injured patients to a trauma center. The benefits of HT over ground transport (GT) in this setting are unclear. By using a national sample, the objective of this study was to assess whether HT impacted outcomes following interfacility transfer of trauma patients.
                Patients transferred by HT or GT in 2007 were identified using the National Trauma Databank (version 8). Injury severity, resource utilization, and survival to discharge were compared. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine whether transport modality was a predictor of survival after adjusting for covariates. Regression analysis was repeated in subgroups with Injury Severity Score (ISS)≤15 and ISS>15.
                There were 74,779 patients transported by helicopter (20%) or ground (80%). Mean ISS was higher in patients transported by helicopter (17±11 vs. 12±9; p<0.01) as was the proportion with ISS>15 (49% vs. 28%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-2.63). Patients transported by helicopter had higher rates of intensive care unit admission (54% vs. 29%; OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.75-2.96), had shorter transport time (61±55 minutes vs. 98±71 minutes; p<0.01), and had shorter overall prehospital time (135±86 minutes vs. 202±132 minutes; p<0.01). HT was not a predictor of survival overall or in patients with ISS≤15. In patients with ISS>15, HT was a predictor of survival (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; p=0.01).
                Patients transported by helicopter were more severely injured and required more hospital resources than patients transported by ground. HT offered shorter transport and overall prehospital times. For patients with ISS>15, HT was a predictor of survival. These findings should be considered when developing interfacility transfer policies for patients with severe injuries. The hypothesis that high level on-the-field ATLS could influence mortality in severe trauma patients was tested by means of a prospective study. During a 7 month period, data of all the victims of severe involuntary trauma (road traffic accidents, work and sport accidents) in 3 Provinces of north-east Italy were entered in a database and analysed. The whole area is covered by a single emergency service which has direct control over all the ambulances and the Emergency Helicopter Service (EMHS). The area concerned by the study has a surface of 7,300 kmq with a population of 1 million inhabitants and is served by 12 first level hospitals and 4 second level institutions (trauma centres). All the patients who were still alive at the time of arrival of the first rescuers were considered, but only severe trauma patients with ISS > 15 were enclosed into the study. All the patients were followed up to their discharge from the ICUs (end point). There were three different rescue approaches: 82 Patients (GROUP A) were rescued by EMTs with BLS training, transported to the nearest level 1 hospital for stabilisation and subsequently transferred to a trauma center; 98 Patients (GROUP B) were rescued by EMTs and directly transported to a trauma centre which was the nearest institution; 42 Patients were rescued on the scene by the EMHS team including an anaesthesiologist with 10 years experience in trauma care and directly transported to a trauma centre after full on-the-field stabilisation (GROUP C) RESULTS: 222 severe trauma patients (ISS > 15) were considered. Mean ISS was 35.1 +/- 18.2 in group A, 33.4 +/- 19.6 in group B and 36.0 +/- 17.8 in group C. 67 patients died previous to ICU discharge (31%). 31 over the 82 pts in Group A (38%) died. 23 of them died even before reaching the trauma centre. The mean time elapsed between the first emergency call and the arrival at the trauma centre was 162 min (90'-300'). Mean ICU stay for patients who survived was 15 days. In Group B 31 over 98 patients (32%) died before ICU discharge. The mean time between the emergency call and hospital admission was 27'. Mean ICU stay for patients who were discharged, was 13 days. 5 over 42 patients rescued by the EMHS (Group C) died, none of them in the pre-hospital setting. Stabilisation included tracheal intubation in 34 cases (81%) and thoracic drainage in 6 (14%). All the patients arrived at the hospital with 2 i.v. line. The average amount of infused fluids were 600 mls of colloids and 810 mls of crystalloid. 13 patients with hypotension received and average of 1000 mls of colloids and 1200 mls of crystalloid. The average time elapsed between the emergency call and the final admission to the definitive care institution was 55'. Mean ICU stay was 11 days. Mortality rate in this group was 12%, significantly lower than in group A (p < 0.005) and group B (p < 0.05). Aeromedical crews offer an advanced level of practice and rapid transport to definitive care; however, their efficacy remains unproven. Previous studies have used relatively small sample sizes or have been unable to adequately control for the effect of other potentially influential variables. Here we explore the impact of aeromedical response in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
                This was a retrospective analysis using our county trauma registry. All patients with head Abbreviated Injury Score of 3 or greater were included; interfacility transfers were excluded. The impact of aeromedical response was determined using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, mechanism, preadmission Glasgow Coma Scale score, head Abbreviated Injury Score, Injury Severity Score, and the presence of preadmission hypotension. Propensity scores were used to account for variability in selection of patients to undergo air versus ground transport. Patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury, as defined by head Abbreviated Injury Score and Glasgow Coma Scale score, were compared. Finally, aeromedical patients undergoing field intubation were compared with ground patients undergoing emergency department (ED) intubation.
                A total of 10,314 patients meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria and with complete data sets were identified and included 3,017 transported by aeromedical crews. Overall mortality was 25% in the air- and ground-transported cohorts, but outcomes were significantly better for the aeromedical patients when adjusted for age, sex, mechanism of injury, hypotension, Glasgow Coma Scale score, head Abbreviated Injury Score, and Injury Severity Score (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60 to 2.25; P<.0001). Good outcomes (discharge to home, jail, psychiatric facility, rehabilitation, or leaving against medical advice) were also higher in aeromedical patients (adjusted OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58; P<.0001). The primary benefit appeared to be in more severely injured patients, as reflected by head Abbreviated Injury Score and Glasgow Coma Scale score. Improved survival was also observed for air-transported patients intubated in the field versus ground-transported patients given emergency intubation in the ED (adjusted OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.78; P<.001).
                Here we analyze a large database of patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Aeromedical response appears to result in improved outcomes after adjustment for multiple influential factors in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. In addition, out-of-hospital intubation among air-transported patients resulted in better outcomes than ED intubation among ground-transported patients. Patients with more severe injuries appeared to derive the greatest benefit from aeromedical transport. 1) To compare the outcomes of adult trauma patients transported to a level I trauma center by helicopter vs. ground ambulance. 2) To determine whether using a unique "natural experiment" design to obtain the ground comparison group will reduce potential confounders.
                Outcomes in adult trauma patients transported to a tertiary care trauma center by air were compared with outcomes in a group of patients who were accepted by the online medical control physician for air transport, but whose air missions were aborted for aviation reasons (weather, maintenance, out on a mission); these patients were subsequently transported by ground ambulance instead. Outcomes were also analyzed for a third ground control group composed of all other adult trauma patients transported by ground during this time period. Data were collected by retrospective database review of trauma patients transferred between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 2003. Outcomes were measured by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) analysis. Z and W scores were calculated.
                Three hundred ninety-seven missions were flown by LifeFlight during the study period vs. 57 in the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group. The mean ages, gender distributions, mechanisms of injury, and Injury Severity Scores (ISSs) were similar in the two groups. Per 100 patients transported, 5.61 more lives were saved in the air group vs. the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group (Z = 3.37). As per TRISS analysis, this is relative to the expected mortality seen with a similar group in the Major Trauma Outcomes Study (MTOS). The Z score for the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group was 0.4. The 1,195 patients in the third all-other ground control group had a higher mean age, lower mean ISS, and worse outcomes according to TRISS analysis (W = -2.02).
                This unique natural experiment led to better matched air vs. ground cohorts for comparison. As per TRISS analysis, air transport of the adult major trauma patient is associated with significantly improved survival as compared with ground transport. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of adult (aged > 15 yr) blunt trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) = 12 who were transported to a single tertiary trauma centre (TTC) by helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) versus those transported by ground ambulance.
                We retrospectively analyzed all adult (aged > 15 yr) trauma patients between March 27, 1998 and March 28, 2002 with an ISS score = 12, as identified through the provincial trauma registry. We used the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) methodology to determine a difference in outcomes between the 2 groups.
                We identified 823 patients; of these, we excluded 32 (3.9%) penetrating trauma patients. Of the blunt trauma cases (n = 791) 237 (30%) patients were transported by air and 554 were transported by ground (70%). A total of 770 (97.3%) patients were eligible for TRISS analysis. Using the TRISS methodology, the air group had a Z statistic of 2.77, yielding a W score of 6.40. This compared with the ground transport group, whose Z statistic was 1.97 and W score was 2.39.
                The transport of trauma patients with an ISS = 12 by a provincially dedicated rotor wing air medical service was associated with statistically significantly better outcomes than those transported by standard ground ambulance. This is the first large Canadian study to specifically compare the outcome of patients transported by ground with those transported by air. AIM, PATIENTS, AND METHODS: To compare retrospectively the outcomes of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (Injury Severity Score, ISS total >or=15; the Abbreviated ISS-head, aISS(head) >or=9) admitted to our Intensive Care Unit by helicopter (helicopter emergency medical service, HEMS group = 89) with those transported by ambulance (GROUND group = 105) from January 2002 to December 2007.
                The groups were comparable for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, ISS total, and aISS(head). The preadmission time of the HEMS group was significantly longer as compared with the GROUND group, but the interval from admission to definitive care was significantly shorter. In the prehospital phase, HEMS patients were more aggressively treated, as indicated by a significantly greater number of procedures performed (i.e. tracheal intubation and positioning of intravenous lines) and larger volumes of fluids infused. The overall mortality was lower in the HEMS than in the GROUND patients (21 vs. 25% respectively, P<0.05). The survival with or without only minor neurological disabilities was higher in the HEMS than in the GROUND group (54 vs. 44% respectively, P<0.05); among the survivors, the rate of severe neurological disabilities was lower in the HEMS than in the GROUND group (25 vs. 31%, P<0.05).
                In our experience, aggressive early treatment of patients with severe traumatic brain injury was associated with a better outcome likely because of the prevention of secondary brain injury and a shorter interval elapsing from the trauma to definitive care despite more time spent on the scene by the intervening team. Some studies have shown improved outcomes with helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport, while others have not. Safety concerns and cost have prompted reevaluation of the widespread use of HEMS.
                To determine whether the mode of transport of trauma patients affects mortality.
                Data for 56,744 injured adults aged ≥ 18 years transported to 62 U.S. trauma centers by helicopter or ground ambulance were obtained from the National Sample Program of the 2007 National Trauma Data Bank. In-hospital mortality was calculated for different demographic and injury severity groups. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were produced by utilizing a logistic regression model measuring the association of mortality and type of transport, controlling for age, gender, and injury severity (Injury Severity Score [ISS] and Revised Trauma Score [RTS]).
                The odds of death were 39% lower in those transported by HEMS compared with those transported by ground ambulance (AOR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-0.69). Among those aged ≥ 55 years, the odds of death were not significantly different (AOR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.74-1.13). Among all transports, male patients had a higher odds of death (AOR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.10-1.38) than female patients. The odds of death increased with each year of age (AOR = 1.040, 95% CI = 1.037-1.043) and each unit of ISS (AOR = 1.080, 95% CI = 1.075-1.084), and decreased with each unit of RTS (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.45-0.48).
                The use of HEMS for the transport of adult trauma patients was associated with reduced mortality for patients aged 18-54 years. In this study, HEMS did not improve mortality in adults aged ≥ 55 years. Identification of additional variables in the selection of those patients who will benefit from HEMS transport is expected to enhance this reduction in mortality. This study compared a hospital-based aeromedical program to a ground paramedic service in order to determine whether the element of prehospital time or prehospital care is the major contributor towards improved survival. One hundred twenty-six severe blunt trauma patients were studied. There were 93(73.81%) transported by air and 33(26.19%) transported by ground. Utilizing the TRISS methodology, the air patients had a probability of survival of 2.23 SD better than the national norm, and the ground patients had a -2.69 SD below the national norm. The air patients had a higher percentage of intubated patients (42% vs 3%) and use of PASG(56% vs 30%). There was no significant difference in the prehospital times of either the air or ground services once they had arrived at the scene. Since the scene time of both services is similar, the improved survival of the air patients may be due to the technical intervention procedures performed. This paper reports a retrospective analysis of patients with serious yet substantially survivable injuries represented by ISS scores from 20 to 39 and whether or not survival was influenced by the use of helicopters. A review of 606 of these patients with blunt trauma was performed for the period from 1983 through 1986. When the group was evaluated there were 451 patients in the ISS cohort of 20-29 and 155 in the 30-39 group. The mean age was 30.5 years and 76% were males. A total of 259 patients were transported by ambulance and 347 by helicopter. Characteristics of the two groups were similar. The mean TS was 12.7 for ambulance and 12.1 for helicopter patients. Mean GCS was 10.4 in the ambulance group and 9.6 for helicopter patients. Overall the mortality for ambulance transported patients was 13% compared to 18% for the helicopter group. We conclude that there is no survival advantage in the helicopter transported group in an urban area with a sophisticated prehospital care system. Patients of rural origin deserve further study. The first hour after the onset of out-of-hospital traumatic injury is referred to as the "golden hour," yet the relationship between time and outcome remains unclear. We evaluate the association between emergency medical services (EMS) intervals and mortality among trauma patients with field-based physiologic abnormality.
                This was a secondary analysis of an out-of-hospital, prospective cohort registry of adult (aged > or =15 years) trauma patients transported by 146 EMS agencies to 51 Level I and II trauma hospitals in 10 sites across North America from December 1, 2005, through March 31, 2007. Inclusion criteria were systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, respiratory rate less than 10 or greater than 29 breaths/min, Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12, or advanced airway intervention. The outcome was in-hospital mortality. We evaluated EMS intervals (activation, response, on-scene, transport, and total time) with logistic regression and 2-step instrumental variable models, adjusted for field-based confounders.
                There were 3,656 trauma patients available for analysis, of whom 806 (22.0%) died. In multivariable analyses, there was no significant association between time and mortality for any EMS interval: activation (odds ratio [OR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.05), response (OR 1.00; 95% CI 9.97 to 1.04), on-scene (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01), transport (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01), or total EMS time (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01). Subgroup and instrumental variable analyses did not qualitatively change these findings.
                In this North American sample, there was no association between EMS intervals and mortality among injured patients with physiologic abnormality in the field.
                Copyright (c) 2009 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved. To assess the effect of the London helicopter emergency medical service on survival after trauma.
                Prospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of seriously injured patients attended by the helicopter and attended by London ambulance service land ambulances crewed by paramedics.
                Greater London.
                337 patients attended by helicopter and 466 patients attended by ambulance who sustained traumatic injuries and died, stayed in hospital three or more nights, or had other evidence of severe injury and who were taken to any one of 20 primary receiving hospitals.
                Survival at six months after the incident.
                After differences in the nature and severity of the injuries in the two cohorts were accounted for the estimated survival rates were the same (relative risk of death with helicopter = 1.0; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.4). An analysis with trauma and injury severity scores (TRISS) found 16% more deaths than predicted in the helicopter cohort but only 2% more in the ambulance cohort. There was no evidence of a difference in survival for patients with head injury but a little evidence that patients with major trauma (injury severity score > or = 16) were more likely to survive if attended by the helicopter. An estimated 13 (-5 to 39) extra patients with major trauma could survive each year if attended by the helicopter.
                Any benefit in survival is restricted to patients with very severe injuries and amounts to an estimated one additional survivor of major trauma each month. Over all the helicopter caseload, however, there is no evidence that it improves the chance of survival in trauma.
Due to the methodological weakness of the available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies, an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS could not be determined. Although five of the nine multivariate regression studies indicated improved survival associated with HEMS, the remainder did not. All were subject to a low quality of evidence as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria due to their non-randomised design. Similarly, TRISS-based studies, which all demonstrated improved survival, cannot be considered strong evidence because of their methodology, which did not randomize the use of HEMS. The question of which elements of HEMS may be beneficial for patients has not been fully answered. The results from this review provide motivation for future work in this area. This includes an ongoing need for diligent reporting of research methods, which is imperative for transparency and to maximise the potential utility of results. Large, multicentre studies are warranted as these will help produce more robust estimates of treatment effects. Future work in this area should also examine the costs and safety of HEMS, since multiple contextual determinants must be considered when evaluating the effects of HEMS for adults with major trauma.