M Kit Delgado1, Kristan L Staudenmayer, N Ewen Wang, David A Spain, Sharada Weir, Douglas K Owens, Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA; Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA; Stanford Investigators for Surgery, Trauma, and Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA. Electronic address: kit.delgado@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the minimum mortality reduction that helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) should provide relative to ground EMS for the scene transport of trauma victims to offset higher costs, inherent transport risks, and inevitable overtriage of patients with minor injury. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of helicopter versus ground EMS transport to a trauma center from a societal perspective during a patient's lifetime. We determined the mortality reduction needed to make helicopter transport cost less than $100,000 and $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with ground EMS. Model inputs were derived from the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma, National Trauma Data Bank, Medicare reimbursements, and literature. We assessed robustness with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Helicopter EMS must provide a minimum of a 15% relative risk reduction in mortality (1.3 lives saved/100 patients with the mean characteristics of the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma cohort) to cost less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a reduction of at least 30% (3.3 lives saved/100 patients) to cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Helicopter EMS becomes more cost-effective with significant reductions in patients with minor injury who are triaged to air transport or if long-term disability outcomes are improved. CONCLUSION: Helicopter EMS needs to provide at least a 15% mortality reduction or a measurable improvement in long-term disability to compare favorably with other interventions considered cost-effective. Given current evidence, it is not clear that helicopter EMS achieves this mortality or disability reduction. Reducing overtriage of patients with minor injury to helicopter EMS would improve its cost-effectiveness.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the minimum mortality reduction that helicopter emergency medical services (EMS) should provide relative to ground EMS for the scene transport of trauma victims to offset higher costs, inherent transport risks, and inevitable overtriage of patients with minor injury. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the costs and outcomes of helicopter versus ground EMS transport to a trauma center from a societal perspective during a patient's lifetime. We determined the mortality reduction needed to make helicopter transport cost less than $100,000 and $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with ground EMS. Model inputs were derived from the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma, National Trauma Data Bank, Medicare reimbursements, and literature. We assessed robustness with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Helicopter EMS must provide a minimum of a 15% relative risk reduction in mortality (1.3 lives saved/100 patients with the mean characteristics of the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma cohort) to cost less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a reduction of at least 30% (3.3 lives saved/100 patients) to cost less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Helicopter EMS becomes more cost-effective with significant reductions in patients with minor injury who are triaged to air transport or if long-term disability outcomes are improved. CONCLUSION: Helicopter EMS needs to provide at least a 15% mortality reduction or a measurable improvement in long-term disability to compare favorably with other interventions considered cost-effective. Given current evidence, it is not clear that helicopter EMS achieves this mortality or disability reduction. Reducing overtriage of patients with minor injury to helicopter EMS would improve its cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Sharada Weir; David S Salkever; Frederick P Rivara; Gregory J Jurkovich; Avery B Nathens; Ellen J Mackenzie Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Daniel P Davis; Jeremy Peay; Jennifer A Serrano; Colleen Buono; Gary M Vilke; Michael J Sise; Frank Kennedy; A Brent Eastman; Thomas Velky; David B Hoyt Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Brandon S Brown; Korby A Pogue; Emily Williams; Jesse Hatfield; Matthew Thomas; Annette Arthur; Stephen H Thomas Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 1.112
Authors: Joshua B. Brown; Kenneth J. Smith; Mark L. Gestring; Matthew R. Rosengart; Timothy R. Billiar; Andrew B. Peitzman; Jason L. Sperry; Joel S. Weissman Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Joshua B Brown; Mark L Gestring; Francis X Guyette; Matthew R Rosengart; Nicole A Stassen; Raquel M Forsythe; Timothy R Billiar; Andrew B Peitzman; Jason L Sperry Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Zhuo Yang; Daniel Nishijima; K John McConnell; Stacy A Trent; James F Holmes; Mohamud Daya; N Clay Mann; Renee Y Hsia; Tom D Rea; N Ewen Wang; Kristan Staudenmayer; M Kit Delgado Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Mark N Fluchel; Anne C Kirchhoff; Julia Bodson; Carol Sweeney; Sandra L Edwards; Qian Ding; Gregory J Stoddard; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Joshua B Brown; Christine M Leeper; Jason L Sperry; Andrew B Peitzman; Timothy R Billiar; Barbara A Gaines; Mark L Gestring Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.313