RESEARCH ARTICLE
Impact of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in Traumatized Patients: Which Patient Benefits Most? Hagen Andruszkow1*, Uwe Schweigkofler2, Rolf Lefering3, Magnus Frey1, Klemens Horst1, Roman Pfeifer1, Stefan Kurt Beckers4, Hans-Christoph Pape1, Frank Hildebrand1 1 Department of Orthopedic Trauma at Aachen University and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany, 2 Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 3 Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), University of Witten/ Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany, 4 Emergency Medical Service Aachen, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, Germany * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Citation: Andruszkow H, Schweigkofler U, Lefering R, Frey M, Horst K, Pfeifer R, et al. (2016) Impact of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in Traumatized Patients: Which Patient Benefits Most? PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146897. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0146897 Editor: Richard E. Burney, University of Michigan, UNITED STATES Received: September 13, 2015 Accepted: December 24, 2015 Published: January 15, 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Andruszkow et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data is provided by the TraumaRegister DGU. Data are available from the TraumaRegister DGU for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Abbreviations: AIS, Abbreviated Injury Scale; AUC, AUC—Akademie der Unfallchirurgie GmbH / AUC— Academy for Trauma Surgery; CI, Confidence
Abstract Introduction The Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) was established for the prehospital trauma care of patients. Improved rescue times and increased coverage areas are discussed as specific advantages of HEMS. We recently found evidence that HEMS exerts beneficial effects on outcomes for severely injured patients. However, it still remains unknown which group of trauma patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue. Consequently, the unique aim of this study was to reveal which patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue.
Methods Trauma patients (ISS 9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2002 and 2012 were analysed using the TraumaRegister DGU. A multivariate regression analysis was used to reveal the survival benefit between different trauma populations.
Results The study included 52 281 trauma patients. Of these, 68.8% (35 974) were rescued by GEMS and 31.2% (16 307) by HEMS. HEMS patients were more severely injured compared to GEMS patients (ISS: HEMS 24.8±13.5 vs. GEMS 21.7±18.0) and more frequently suffered traumatic shock (SBP sys
Impact of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in Traumatized Patients: Which Patient Benefits Most? Hagen Andruszkow1*, Uwe Schweigkofler2, Rolf Lefering3, Magnus Frey1, Klemens Horst1, Roman Pfeifer1, Stefan Kurt Beckers4, Hans-Christoph Pape1, Frank Hildebrand1 1 Department of Orthopedic Trauma at Aachen University and Harald Tscherne Laboratory, University Hospital Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany, 2 Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 3 Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), University of Witten/ Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany, 4 Emergency Medical Service Aachen, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, Germany * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Citation: Andruszkow H, Schweigkofler U, Lefering R, Frey M, Horst K, Pfeifer R, et al. (2016) Impact of Helicopter Emergency Medical Service in Traumatized Patients: Which Patient Benefits Most? PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146897. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0146897 Editor: Richard E. Burney, University of Michigan, UNITED STATES Received: September 13, 2015 Accepted: December 24, 2015 Published: January 15, 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Andruszkow et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data is provided by the TraumaRegister DGU. Data are available from the TraumaRegister DGU for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Abbreviations: AIS, Abbreviated Injury Scale; AUC, AUC—Akademie der Unfallchirurgie GmbH / AUC— Academy for Trauma Surgery; CI, Confidence
Abstract Introduction The Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) was established for the prehospital trauma care of patients. Improved rescue times and increased coverage areas are discussed as specific advantages of HEMS. We recently found evidence that HEMS exerts beneficial effects on outcomes for severely injured patients. However, it still remains unknown which group of trauma patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue. Consequently, the unique aim of this study was to reveal which patients might benefit most from HEMS rescue.
Methods Trauma patients (ISS 9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2002 and 2012 were analysed using the TraumaRegister DGU. A multivariate regression analysis was used to reveal the survival benefit between different trauma populations.
Results The study included 52 281 trauma patients. Of these, 68.8% (35 974) were rescued by GEMS and 31.2% (16 307) by HEMS. HEMS patients were more severely injured compared to GEMS patients (ISS: HEMS 24.8±13.5 vs. GEMS 21.7±18.0) and more frequently suffered traumatic shock (SBP sys
