首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Association between helicopter vs ground emergency medical services and survival for adults with major trauma
【24h】

Association between helicopter vs ground emergency medical services and survival for adults with major trauma

机译:直升飞机与地面紧急医疗服务与严重创伤成年人的生存之间的关联

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Context: Helicopter emergency medical services and their possible effect on outcomes for traumatically injured patients remain a subject of debate. Because helicopter services are a limited and expensive resource, a methodologically rigorous investigation of its effectiveness compared with ground emergency medical services is warranted. Objective: To assess the association between the use of helicopter vs ground services and survival among adults with serious traumatic injuries. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study involving 223 475 patients older than 15 years, having an injury severity score higher than 15, and sustaining blunt or penetrating trauma that required transport to US level I or II trauma centers and whose data were recorded in the 2007-2009 versions of the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank. Interventions Transport by helicopter or ground emergency services to level I or level II trauma centers. Main Outcome Measures: Survival to hospital discharge and discharge disposition. Results A total of 61 909 patients were transported by helicopter and 161 566 patients were transported by ground. Overall, 7813 patients (12.6%) transported by helicopter died compared with 17 775 patients (11%) transported by ground services. Before propensity score matching, patients transported by helicopter to level I and level II trauma centers had higher Injury Severity Scores. In the propensity score-matched multivariable regression model, for patients transported to level I trauma centers, helicopter transport was associated with an improved odds of survival compared with ground transport (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.14-1.17; P<.001; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 1.5%). For patients transported to level II trauma centers, helicopter transport was associated with an improved odds of survival (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17; P<.001; ARR, 1.4%). A greater proportion (18.2%) of those transported to level I trauma centers by helicopter were discharged to rehabilitation compared with 12.7% transported by ground services (P<.001), and 9.3% transported by helicopter were discharged to intermediate facilities compared with 6.5% by ground services (P<.001). Fewer patients transported by helicopter left level II trauma centers against medical advice (0.5% vs 1.0%, P<.001). Conclusion: Among patients with major trauma admitted to level I or level II trauma centers, transport by helicopter compared with ground services was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge after controlling for multiple known confounders.
机译:背景:直升机急诊医疗服务及其对创伤患者的预后可能产生的影响仍是争论的话题。由于直升机服务是一种有限且昂贵的资源,因此与地面紧急医疗服务相比,有必要对其方法进行严格的方法学调查。目的:评估直升机与地面服务的使用与成年人严重创伤中的生存之间的关系。设计,背景和参与者回顾性队列研究涉及15岁以上的223 475名患者,损伤严重程度评分高于15,并且承受钝器或穿透性创伤,需要转运至美国I级或II级创伤中心,并记录其数据。美国外科医生学院国家创伤数据库的2007-2009版本。干预措施通过直升机或地面紧急服务运输到I级或II级创伤中心。主要结果指标:生存到医院出院和出院处置。结果直升飞机共运送患者61 909例,地面运送161 566例。总体而言,直升机运送的7813例患者(占12.6%)死亡,而地面服务运送的17775例患者(占11%)死亡。在倾向得分匹配之前,乘坐直升机运送到I级和II级创伤中心的患者的损伤严重度得分较高。在倾向得分匹配的多变量回归模型中,对于被运送到I级创伤中心的患者,与地面运输相比,直升机运输具有更高的生存几率(赔率[OR],1.16; 95%CI,1.14-1.17; P <.001;绝对风险降低[ARR],1.5%)。对于转运至II级创伤中心的患者,直升机转运与生存几率提高相关(OR为1.15; 95%CI为1.13-1.17; P <.001; ARR为1.4%)。直升机运送到一级创伤中心的人中有较大比例的(18.2%)出院康复,而地面服务运送的人中有12.7%(P <.001),直升机运送到中间设施的9.3%是6.5%。 %由地面服务提供(P <.001)。接受医疗建议后,乘坐直升机离开左II级创伤中心转运的患者较少(0.5%比1.0%,P <.001)。结论:在I级或II级创伤中心收治的重大创伤患者中,控制多个已知混杂因素后,与地面服务相比,直升机运输与住院出院存活率提高相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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