首页> 外文期刊>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine >Outcomes after helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for major trauma--propensity score and instrumental variable analyses: a retrospective nationwide cohort study
【24h】

Outcomes after helicopter versus ground emergency medical services for major trauma--propensity score and instrumental variable analyses: a retrospective nationwide cohort study

机译:直升机对地面紧急医疗服务对重大创伤的结果-倾向评分和工具变量分析:一项回顾性全国队列研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials and the methodological weakness of currently available observational studies, the benefits of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) over ground emergency medical services (GEMS) for major trauma patients remain uncertain. The aim of this retrospective nationwide cohort study was to compare the mortality of adults with serious traumatic injuries who were transported by HEMS and GEMS, and to analyze the effects of HEMS in various subpopulations. Methods Using the Japan Trauma Data Bank, we evaluated all adult patients who had an injury severity score?≥?16 transported by HEMS or GEMS during the daytime between 2004 and 2014. We compared in-hospital mortality between patients transported by HEMS and GEMS using propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable analyses to adjust for measured and unmeasured confounding factors. Results Eligible patients ( n =?21,286) from 192 hospitals included 4128 transported by HEMS and 17,158 transported by GEMS. In the propensity score-matched model, there was a significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between HEMS and GEMS groups (22.2 vs. 24.5%, risk difference ?2.3% [95% confidence interval, ?4.2 to ?0.5]; number needed to treat, 43 [95% confidence interval, 24 to 220]). The inverse probability of treatment weighting (20.8% vs. 23.9%; risk difference, ?3.9% [95% confidence interval, ?5.7 to ?2.1]; number needed to treat, 26 [95% confidence interval, 17 to 48]) and instrumental variable analyses showed similar results (risk difference, ?6.5% [95% confidence interval, ?9.2 to ?3.8]; number needed to treat, 15 [95% confidence interval, 11 to 27]). HEMS transport was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality after falls, compression injuries, severe chest injuries, extremity (including pelvic) injuries, and traumatic arrest on arrival to the emergency department. Conclusions HEMS was associated with a significantly lower mortality than GEMS in adult patients with major traumatic injuries after adjusting for measured and unmeasured confounders.
机译:背景技术由于缺乏随机对照试验以及当前可用观察性研究的方法学缺陷,对于主要创伤患者而言,直升机急诊医疗服务(HEMS)相对于地面急诊医疗服务(GEMS)的收益仍然不确定。这项全国性回顾性队列研究的目的是比较由HEMS和GEMS转运的严重创伤患者的死亡率,并分析HEMS在不同亚人群中的作用。方法使用日本创伤数据库,评估2004年至2014年间白天通过HEMS或GEMS转运的损伤严重程度得分≥16的所有成年患者。倾向得分匹配,治疗权重的逆概率和工具变量分析,以针对已测量和未测量的混杂因素进行调整。结果192所医院的合格患者(n = 21,286)包括HEMS运送的4128例和GEMS运送的17158例。在倾向得分匹配模型中,HEMS组和GEMS组之间的院内死亡率存在显着差异(22.2 vs. 24.5%,风险差异为?2.3%[95%置信区间,?4.2至?0.5];数量需要治疗[43 [95%置信区间,24至220])。权重的相反概率(20.8%vs. 23.9%;风险差异,?3.9%[95%置信区间,?5.7至?2.1];需要治疗的次数,26 [95%置信区间,17至48])工具变量分析显示了相似的结果(风险差异,?6.5%[95%置信区间,?9.2至?3.8];需要治疗的数字,15 [95%置信区间,11至27])。 HEMS运输与跌倒后的院内死亡率降低,压伤,严重的胸部损伤,四肢(包括骨盆)损伤以及到达急诊室时的外伤性停滞密切相关。结论在校正了可测量和不可测量的混杂因素后,成人重大创伤患者的HEMS死亡率显着低于GEMS。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号