Helicopter and ground emergency medical services transportation to hospital after major trauma in England: a comparative cohort study. Issue 1 (16th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beaumont, Oliver; Lecky, Fiona; Bouamra, Omar; Surendra Kumar, Dhushy; Coats, Tim; Lockey, David; Willett, Keith
• Is Part Of: Trauma surgery & acute care open. Volume 5:Issue 1(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07-16
• Subjects: emergency medical services -- multiple trauma -- survival rate -- mortality; Traumatology -- Periodicals; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Periodicals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2020-000508
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2397-5776

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The utilization of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in modern trauma systems has been a source of debate for many years. This study set to establish the true impact of HEMS in England on survival for patients with major trauma. Methods: A comparative cohort design using prospectively recorded data from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network registry. 279 107 patients were identified between January 2012 and March 2017. The primary outcome measure was risk adjusted in-hospital mortality within propensity score matched cohorts using logistic regression analysis. Subset analyses were performed for subjects with prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale <8, respiratory rate <10 or >29 and systolic blood pressure <90. Results: The analysis was based on 61 733 adult patients directly admitted to major trauma centers: 54 185 ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and 7548 HEMS. HEMS patients were more likely male, younger, more severely injured, more likely to be victims of road traffic collisions and intubated at scene. Crude mortality was higher for HEMS patients. Logistic regression demonstrated a 15% reduction in the risk adjusted odds of death (OR=0.846; 95% CI 0.684 to 1.046) in favor of HEMS. When analyzed for patients previously noted to benefit most from HEMS, the odds of death were reduced further but remained statistically consistent with no effect. Sensitivity analysis on 5685 patients attended by a doctor on scene but transported by GEMS demonstrated a protective effect on mortality versus the standard GEMS response (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95). Discussion: This prospective, level 3 cohort analysis demonstrates a non-significant survival advantage for patients transported by HEMS versus GEMS. Despite the large size of the cohort, the intrinsic mismatch in patient demographics limits the ability to statistically assess HEMS true benefit. It does, however, demonstrate an improved survival for patients attended by doctors on scene in addition to the GEMS response. Improvements in prehospital data and increased trauma unit reporting are required to accurately assess HEMS clinical and cost-effectiveness.