Comparison of helicopter versus ground transport for the interfacility transport of isolated spinal injury

Abstract Background context The use and need of helicopter aeromedical transport systems (HEMSs) in health care today is based on the basic belief that early definitive care improves outcomes. Helicopter aeromedical transport system is perceived to be safer than ground transport (GT) for the interfa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The spine journal 2014-07, Vol.14 (7), p.1147-1154
Hauptverfasser: Foster, Norah A., MD, Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD, Kelley, Wayne, MD, Brown, Christopher R., MD, Foley, Carolyn, RN, Scarborough, John E., MD, Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD, Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1154
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1147
container_title The spine journal
container_volume 14
creator Foster, Norah A., MD
Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD
Kelley, Wayne, MD
Brown, Christopher R., MD
Foley, Carolyn, RN
Scarborough, John E., MD
Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD
Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS
description Abstract Background context The use and need of helicopter aeromedical transport systems (HEMSs) in health care today is based on the basic belief that early definitive care improves outcomes. Helicopter aeromedical transport system is perceived to be safer than ground transport (GT) for the interfacility transfer of patients who have sustained spinal injury because of the concern for deterioration of neurologic function if there is a delay in reaching a higher level of care. However, the use of HEMS is facing increasing public scrutiny because of its significantly greater cost and unique risk profile. Purpose The aim of the study was to determine whether GT for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury resulted in less favorable clinical outcomes compared with HEMS. Study design/setting Retrospective review of all patients transferred to a Level 1 trauma center. Patient sample Patients identified from the State Trauma Registry who were initially seen at another hospital with an isolated diagnosis of injury to the spine and then transferred to a Level 1 trauma center over a 2-year period. Outcome measures Neurologic deterioration, disposition from the emergency department, in-hospital mortality, interfacility transfer time, hospital length of stay, nonroutine discharge, and radiographic evidence of worsening spinal injury. Methods Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for injury to the spine were selected and records were reviewed for demographics and injury details. All available spine radiographs were reviewed by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to clinical data and transport type. Chi-square and t tests and multivariate linear and logistic regression models were done using STATA version 10. Results A total of 274 spine injury patients were included in our analysis, 84 (31%) of whom were transported by HEMS and 190 (69%) by GT. None of the GT patients had any deterioration in neurologic examination nor any detectable alteration in the radiographic appearance of their spine injury attributable to the transportation process. Helicopter aeromedical transport system resulted in significantly less transfer time with an average time of 80 minutes compared with 112 minutes with GT (p
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.478
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1537594353</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1529943013014009</els_id><sourcerecordid>1537594353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-115523b26cb5f47875e7b5f4f1cbb5f6b77548e469f79064ab328d115c91bab33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUctq3TAQFSWlebR_UIqW2djR07I3hXBJm0Agi7ZrIcvjRq6u5Upy4P59ZW5aSjYBwcygM2fmnEHoIyU1JbS5muq0uBmgZoTymqhaqPYNOqOtaivacHZScsm6qhOcnKLzlCZCSKsoe4dOmaC8Y5ydoWkX9ouJLoUZhxE_gnc2LBkifoKY1oR_xrDOA87RzGkJMeMxRJwfAbu5oEZjnXf58N9_YSls3mQY8Lah8QU6rfHwHr0djU_w4TleoB9fbr7vbqv7h693u-v7ygqqckWplIz3rLG9HIsmJUFt2UhtX2LTKyVFC6LpRtWRRpies3YoXbajfSn4Bbo88i4x_F4hZb13yYL3ZoawJk0lV7K4IjeoOEJtDClFGPUS3d7Eg6ZEby7rSR9d1pvLmihdNiptn54nrP0ehn9Nf20tgM9HABSdTw6iTtbBbGFwEWzWQ3CvTXhJYL2bnTX-FxwgTWGNxdiiRSemif62XXo7NC1PENLxP6vlpvE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1537594353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of helicopter versus ground transport for the interfacility transport of isolated spinal injury</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Foster, Norah A., MD ; Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD ; Kelley, Wayne, MD ; Brown, Christopher R., MD ; Foley, Carolyn, RN ; Scarborough, John E., MD ; Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD ; Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</creator><creatorcontrib>Foster, Norah A., MD ; Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD ; Kelley, Wayne, MD ; Brown, Christopher R., MD ; Foley, Carolyn, RN ; Scarborough, John E., MD ; Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD ; Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background context The use and need of helicopter aeromedical transport systems (HEMSs) in health care today is based on the basic belief that early definitive care improves outcomes. Helicopter aeromedical transport system is perceived to be safer than ground transport (GT) for the interfacility transfer of patients who have sustained spinal injury because of the concern for deterioration of neurologic function if there is a delay in reaching a higher level of care. However, the use of HEMS is facing increasing public scrutiny because of its significantly greater cost and unique risk profile. Purpose The aim of the study was to determine whether GT for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury resulted in less favorable clinical outcomes compared with HEMS. Study design/setting Retrospective review of all patients transferred to a Level 1 trauma center. Patient sample Patients identified from the State Trauma Registry who were initially seen at another hospital with an isolated diagnosis of injury to the spine and then transferred to a Level 1 trauma center over a 2-year period. Outcome measures Neurologic deterioration, disposition from the emergency department, in-hospital mortality, interfacility transfer time, hospital length of stay, nonroutine discharge, and radiographic evidence of worsening spinal injury. Methods Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for injury to the spine were selected and records were reviewed for demographics and injury details. All available spine radiographs were reviewed by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to clinical data and transport type. Chi-square and t tests and multivariate linear and logistic regression models were done using STATA version 10. Results A total of 274 spine injury patients were included in our analysis, 84 (31%) of whom were transported by HEMS and 190 (69%) by GT. None of the GT patients had any deterioration in neurologic examination nor any detectable alteration in the radiographic appearance of their spine injury attributable to the transportation process. Helicopter aeromedical transport system resulted in significantly less transfer time with an average time of 80 minutes compared with 112 minutes with GT (p&lt;.001). Ultimate disposition included 175 (64%) patients discharged to home, 15 (5%) expired patients, and 84 (31%) discharged to extended care facilities. After adjusting for patient age and Injury Severity Score, the use of GT was not a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.3–5), hospital length of stay (11.2+1.3 vs. 9.5+0.8 days, p=.3), or nonroutine discharge (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–2.2). Conclusions Ground transport for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury appears to be safe and suitable for patients who lack other compelling reasons for HEMS. A prospective analysis of transportation mode in a larger cohort of patients is needed to verify our findings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1529-9430</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.478</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24139232</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Air Ambulances ; Ambulances ; Female ; Helicopter aeromedical transport system ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Injury Severity Score ; Interfacility transport ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; Registries ; Spinal Injuries ; Spinal injury ; Time Factors ; Transportation of Patients - methods ; Trauma Centers ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The spine journal, 2014-07, Vol.14 (7), p.1147-1154</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-115523b26cb5f47875e7b5f4f1cbb5f6b77548e469f79064ab328d115c91bab33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-115523b26cb5f47875e7b5f4f1cbb5f6b77548e469f79064ab328d115c91bab33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.478$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24139232$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Foster, Norah A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelley, Wayne, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Christopher R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Carolyn, RN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scarborough, John E., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of helicopter versus ground transport for the interfacility transport of isolated spinal injury</title><title>The spine journal</title><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><description>Abstract Background context The use and need of helicopter aeromedical transport systems (HEMSs) in health care today is based on the basic belief that early definitive care improves outcomes. Helicopter aeromedical transport system is perceived to be safer than ground transport (GT) for the interfacility transfer of patients who have sustained spinal injury because of the concern for deterioration of neurologic function if there is a delay in reaching a higher level of care. However, the use of HEMS is facing increasing public scrutiny because of its significantly greater cost and unique risk profile. Purpose The aim of the study was to determine whether GT for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury resulted in less favorable clinical outcomes compared with HEMS. Study design/setting Retrospective review of all patients transferred to a Level 1 trauma center. Patient sample Patients identified from the State Trauma Registry who were initially seen at another hospital with an isolated diagnosis of injury to the spine and then transferred to a Level 1 trauma center over a 2-year period. Outcome measures Neurologic deterioration, disposition from the emergency department, in-hospital mortality, interfacility transfer time, hospital length of stay, nonroutine discharge, and radiographic evidence of worsening spinal injury. Methods Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for injury to the spine were selected and records were reviewed for demographics and injury details. All available spine radiographs were reviewed by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to clinical data and transport type. Chi-square and t tests and multivariate linear and logistic regression models were done using STATA version 10. Results A total of 274 spine injury patients were included in our analysis, 84 (31%) of whom were transported by HEMS and 190 (69%) by GT. None of the GT patients had any deterioration in neurologic examination nor any detectable alteration in the radiographic appearance of their spine injury attributable to the transportation process. Helicopter aeromedical transport system resulted in significantly less transfer time with an average time of 80 minutes compared with 112 minutes with GT (p&lt;.001). Ultimate disposition included 175 (64%) patients discharged to home, 15 (5%) expired patients, and 84 (31%) discharged to extended care facilities. After adjusting for patient age and Injury Severity Score, the use of GT was not a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.3–5), hospital length of stay (11.2+1.3 vs. 9.5+0.8 days, p=.3), or nonroutine discharge (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–2.2). Conclusions Ground transport for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury appears to be safe and suitable for patients who lack other compelling reasons for HEMS. A prospective analysis of transportation mode in a larger cohort of patients is needed to verify our findings.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Air Ambulances</subject><subject>Ambulances</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Helicopter aeromedical transport system</subject><subject>Hospital Mortality</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injury Severity Score</subject><subject>Interfacility transport</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Spinal Injuries</subject><subject>Spinal injury</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Transportation of Patients - methods</subject><subject>Trauma Centers</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1529-9430</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUctq3TAQFSWlebR_UIqW2djR07I3hXBJm0Agi7ZrIcvjRq6u5Upy4P59ZW5aSjYBwcygM2fmnEHoIyU1JbS5muq0uBmgZoTymqhaqPYNOqOtaivacHZScsm6qhOcnKLzlCZCSKsoe4dOmaC8Y5ydoWkX9ouJLoUZhxE_gnc2LBkifoKY1oR_xrDOA87RzGkJMeMxRJwfAbu5oEZjnXf58N9_YSls3mQY8Lah8QU6rfHwHr0djU_w4TleoB9fbr7vbqv7h693u-v7ygqqckWplIz3rLG9HIsmJUFt2UhtX2LTKyVFC6LpRtWRRpies3YoXbajfSn4Bbo88i4x_F4hZb13yYL3ZoawJk0lV7K4IjeoOEJtDClFGPUS3d7Eg6ZEby7rSR9d1pvLmihdNiptn54nrP0ehn9Nf20tgM9HABSdTw6iTtbBbGFwEWzWQ3CvTXhJYL2bnTX-FxwgTWGNxdiiRSemif62XXo7NC1PENLxP6vlpvE</recordid><startdate>20140701</startdate><enddate>20140701</enddate><creator>Foster, Norah A., MD</creator><creator>Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD</creator><creator>Kelley, Wayne, MD</creator><creator>Brown, Christopher R., MD</creator><creator>Foley, Carolyn, RN</creator><creator>Scarborough, John E., MD</creator><creator>Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD</creator><creator>Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140701</creationdate><title>Comparison of helicopter versus ground transport for the interfacility transport of isolated spinal injury</title><author>Foster, Norah A., MD ; Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD ; Kelley, Wayne, MD ; Brown, Christopher R., MD ; Foley, Carolyn, RN ; Scarborough, John E., MD ; Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD ; Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-115523b26cb5f47875e7b5f4f1cbb5f6b77548e469f79064ab328d115c91bab33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Air Ambulances</topic><topic>Ambulances</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Helicopter aeromedical transport system</topic><topic>Hospital Mortality</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injury Severity Score</topic><topic>Interfacility transport</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Spinal Injuries</topic><topic>Spinal injury</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Transportation of Patients - methods</topic><topic>Trauma Centers</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Foster, Norah A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelley, Wayne, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Christopher R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Carolyn, RN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scarborough, John E., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Foster, Norah A., MD</au><au>Elfenbein, Dawn M., MD</au><au>Kelley, Wayne, MD</au><au>Brown, Christopher R., MD</au><au>Foley, Carolyn, RN</au><au>Scarborough, John E., MD</au><au>Vaslef, Steven N., MD, PhD</au><au>Shapiro, Mark L., MD, FACS</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of helicopter versus ground transport for the interfacility transport of isolated spinal injury</atitle><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><date>2014-07-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1147</spage><epage>1154</epage><pages>1147-1154</pages><issn>1529-9430</issn><eissn>1878-1632</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background context The use and need of helicopter aeromedical transport systems (HEMSs) in health care today is based on the basic belief that early definitive care improves outcomes. Helicopter aeromedical transport system is perceived to be safer than ground transport (GT) for the interfacility transfer of patients who have sustained spinal injury because of the concern for deterioration of neurologic function if there is a delay in reaching a higher level of care. However, the use of HEMS is facing increasing public scrutiny because of its significantly greater cost and unique risk profile. Purpose The aim of the study was to determine whether GT for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury resulted in less favorable clinical outcomes compared with HEMS. Study design/setting Retrospective review of all patients transferred to a Level 1 trauma center. Patient sample Patients identified from the State Trauma Registry who were initially seen at another hospital with an isolated diagnosis of injury to the spine and then transferred to a Level 1 trauma center over a 2-year period. Outcome measures Neurologic deterioration, disposition from the emergency department, in-hospital mortality, interfacility transfer time, hospital length of stay, nonroutine discharge, and radiographic evidence of worsening spinal injury. Methods Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for injury to the spine were selected and records were reviewed for demographics and injury details. All available spine radiographs were reviewed by an orthopedic surgeon blinded to clinical data and transport type. Chi-square and t tests and multivariate linear and logistic regression models were done using STATA version 10. Results A total of 274 spine injury patients were included in our analysis, 84 (31%) of whom were transported by HEMS and 190 (69%) by GT. None of the GT patients had any deterioration in neurologic examination nor any detectable alteration in the radiographic appearance of their spine injury attributable to the transportation process. Helicopter aeromedical transport system resulted in significantly less transfer time with an average time of 80 minutes compared with 112 minutes with GT (p&lt;.001). Ultimate disposition included 175 (64%) patients discharged to home, 15 (5%) expired patients, and 84 (31%) discharged to extended care facilities. After adjusting for patient age and Injury Severity Score, the use of GT was not a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.3–5), hospital length of stay (11.2+1.3 vs. 9.5+0.8 days, p=.3), or nonroutine discharge (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–2.2). Conclusions Ground transport for interfacility transfer of patients with spinal injury appears to be safe and suitable for patients who lack other compelling reasons for HEMS. A prospective analysis of transportation mode in a larger cohort of patients is needed to verify our findings.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24139232</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.478</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1529-9430
ispartof The spine journal, 2014-07, Vol.14 (7), p.1147-1154
issn 1529-9430
1878-1632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1537594353
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Air Ambulances
Ambulances
Female
Helicopter aeromedical transport system
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Injury Severity Score
Interfacility transport
Length of Stay
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Registries
Spinal Injuries
Spinal injury
Time Factors
Transportation of Patients - methods
Trauma Centers
Young Adult
title Comparison of helicopter versus ground transport for the interfacility transport of isolated spinal injury
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T18%3A48%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20helicopter%20versus%20ground%20transport%20for%20the%20interfacility%20transport%20of%20isolated%20spinal%20injury&rft.jtitle=The%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Foster,%20Norah%20A.,%20MD&rft.date=2014-07-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1147&rft.epage=1154&rft.pages=1147-1154&rft.issn=1529-9430&rft.eissn=1878-1632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.478&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1537594353%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1537594353&rft_id=info:pmid/24139232&rft_els_id=S1529943013014009&rfr_iscdi=true