| Literature DB >> 28915898 |
Toni Pakkanen1,2, Antti Kämäräinen3, Heini Huhtala4, Tom Silfvast5, Jouni Nurmi6, Ilkka Virkkunen7, Arvi Yli-Hankala8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After traumatic brain injury (TBI), hypotension, hypoxia and hypercapnia have been shown to result in secondary brain injury that can lead to increased mortality and disability. Effective prehospital assessment and treatment by emergency medical service (EMS) is considered essential for favourable outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) in the treatment of TBI patients.Entities:
Keywords: Airway management (MeSH); Critical care (MeSH); Emergency medical services (MeSH); Endotracheal intubation (MeSH); Glasgow outcome scale (MeSH); Patient outcome assessment (MeSH); Prehospital emergency care (MeSH); Traumatic brain injury (MeSH)
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28915898 PMCID: PMC5603088 DOI: 10.1186/s13049-017-0438-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Fig. 1Flow-chart
Baseline characteristics
| Period 1: EMS | Period 2: HEMS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| p-value | ||||
| Age, years | (Median, Q1-Q3) | 54 | 33–69 | 53 | 23–74 | 0.479 |
| Gender, male | (n, %) | 127 | 70 | 58 | 68 | 0.820 |
| Mechanism of injury | (n, %) | 0.288 | ||||
| Fall from ground level | 79 | 43 | 32 | 38 | ||
| Traffic accident | 41 | 23 | 29 | 34 | ||
| Fall from a height (> 2 m) | 25 | 14 | 9 | 11 | ||
| Violence | 14 | 8 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Other | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | ||
| Unknown | 18 | 10 | 5 | 6 | ||
| Primary GCS | (Median, Q1-Q3) | 5 | 3–7 | 5 | 3–7 | 0.956 |
| Primary vital parameters | (n/total, %) | |||||
| Hypoxia | 32/170 | 19 | 18/84 | 21 | 0.369 | |
| Hypotension | 7/174 | 4 | 4/84 | 5 | 0.514 | |
| Airway secured | (n, %) | 29 | 16 | 81 | 95 | < 0.001 |
| Prehospital decision not to treat | – | – | 2 | 2 | ||
| Vital parameters on arrival at the ED | (n/total, %) | |||||
| Hypoxia | 18/173 | 10 | 2/84 | 2 | 0.024 | |
| Hypotension | 7/179 | 4 | 4/85 | 5 | 0.750 | |
| Mission related times, minutes | (Median, Range) | |||||
| From dispatch to arrival on-scene | ||||||
| 1st EMS Unit on-scene | 8 | 0–37 | 12 | 4–41 | 0.006 | |
| HEMS | – | – | 23 | 6–85 | ||
| Total mission time | 54 | 18–180 | 82 | 30–201 | < 0.001 | |
Fig. 2Six-month survival according to EMS system (Log Rank p = 0.066)
Univariate and multivariable logistic regression of six-month good outcome predictors
| Univariate | Multivariable | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| Period | ||||||
| HEMS | 1.87 | 1.09–3.21 | 0.022 | 2.46 | 0.89–6.84 | 0.083 |
| EMS | 1 | |||||
| Age | 0.95 | 0.93–0.96 | < 0.001 | 0.95 | 0.93–0.96 | < 0.001 |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 1.78 | 0.99–3.19 | 0.055 | Not entered | ||
| Female | 1 | |||||
| GCS | 1.07 | 0.97–1.18 | 0.183 | Not entered | ||
| Hypoxia | ||||||
| On-scene | 1 | Not entered | ||||
| Not present | 1.65 | 0.81–3.37 | 0.165 | |||
| Hypotension | ||||||
| On-scene | 1 | Not entered | ||||
| Not present | 2.26 | 0.48–10.72 | 0.303 | |||
| Airway | ||||||
| Secured | 1.89 | 1.12–3.19 | 0.017 | 0.71 | 0.27–1.88 | 0.486 |
| Not secured | 1 | |||||
| Hypoxia | ||||||
| At ER | 1 | Not entered | ||||
| Not present | 2.12 | 0.69–6.54 | 0.193 | |||
| Hypotension | ||||||
| At ER | 1 | Not entered | ||||
| Not present | 2.28 | 0.48–10.78 | 0.299 | |||