Ten years of helicopter emergency medical services in Germany: Do we still need the helicopter rescue in multiple traumatised patients?
Introduction
Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) has become a significant component of preclinical treatment of traumatised patients in many countries [1], [2]. In Germany for example, HEMS is incorporated in a dense nationwide network of emergency medical services [1], [2], [3]. Since its introduction into the civilian rescue system, the effects of HEMS towards time and cost efficiency have been discussed controversially [1], [3], [4], [5]. In this context, diverse potential disadvantages of HEMS (e.g. high financial burden [6], availability of HEMS due to weather conditions, etc.) have been reported [1], [3], [7]. However, HEMS also seems to provide several presumable advantages compared to ground emergency medical services (GEMS). Firstly, HEMS is expected to facilitate rapid and wide ranged transport due to increased transportation velocity [8]. Secondly, HEMS medical crew members are supposed to be more experienced in trauma management improving preclinical treatment of traumatised patients [8], [9]. At least, improved triaging is suggested to result in transportation to a specialist trauma centre avoiding inter-hospital transfers [10].
Despite these expected beneficial aspects, the effects of HEMS transport on posttraumatic outcome also revealed varying results [5]. In this context, in some studies no significant effects of HEMS on mortality were found [9], [11], [12], whereas other studies reported contrary findings with a HEMS-associated decrease of mortality [1], [4], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. According to a current Cochrane Database analysis an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS could not be determined due to methodological weakness of the actually available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of health care systems (e.g. physician-staffed HEMS) and study methodologies [5]. The authors stated that the benefit of HEMS has not been fully proven yet and that large, multicenter studies are warranted generating more robust estimates of treatment effects [5].
The presented study intended to provide an overview of HEMS rescue in Germany over the last decade. We aimed to evaluate potential changes in HEMS-associated pre-hospital trauma care over this period. We particularly investigated whether a nationwide, physician-staffed HEMS system has a beneficial impact on outcome in multiple traumatised patients.
Section snippets
The TraumaRegister DGU®
The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) was established in 1993. In 2012 it prospectively collected data from more than 500 European trauma centres. About 90% of trauma patients are documented by German hospitals. Approximately 100 data elements are collected per patient structured in four sections corresponding to the consecutive phases of acute trauma care: A – preclinical phase: mechanism of injury, initial physiology, first therapy, neurological sign and rescue time; B – emergency room:
Demographic data
42,788 patients were included in the present study (Fig. 1). 14,275 (33.4%) patients were rescued by HEMS and 28,513 (66.6%) by GEMS. Overall, 66.8% (n = 28,569) patients were transported to a level I trauma centre, 28.2% (n = 12,052) to a level II trauma centre, and 5.1% (n = 2167) to a level III trauma centre. Mean age for all patients was 46.9 ± 21.5 years, and 72.4% were male. 3.7% of the included patients were children aged ≤15 years at time of injury. Patients transported by HEMS were younger
Discussion
Since its introduction 40 years ago, the outcome benefit of HEMS rescue in trauma patients has been discussed controversially. A current Cochrane Review concluded that on the basis of the currently available studies no definitive recommendation for the use of HEMS in preclinical trauma care can be given and emphasised the need for valid and large multicenter studies [5]. With this study we aimed to revisit this topic by presenting an overview of HEMS rescue in Germany over the last decade.
Conclusions
According to the results of the presented study, over the last decade a constant and independent survival benefit of HEMS in multiple trauma patients has been proven by adjusted multivariate regression analysis. Despite this fact, a steady decline of HEMS rescue trauma missions was found. We therefore conclude that HEMS rescue in Germany is advisable for the preclinical care of multiple trauma patients whenever possible and reasonable in order to allow the proven survival benefit for multiple
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
References (38)
- et al.
The cost-effectiveness of physician staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) transport to a major trauma centre in NSW, Australia
Injury
(2012) - et al.
Trauma care in Germany
Injury
(2003) - et al.
The effect of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services on trauma patient mortality in the Netherlands
Injury
(2012) - et al.
Hospital-based rotorcraft aeromedical emergency care services and trauma mortality: a multicenter study
Ann Emerg Med
(1985) - et al.
Nontrauma helicopter emergency medical services transport: annotated review of selected outcomes-related literature
Prehosp Emerg Care
(2002) - et al.
Which groups of patients benefit from helicopter evacuation?
Lancet
(1996) - et al.
Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients
Crit Care
(2013) - et al.
Trauma care in Germany: an inclusive system
Clin Orthop Relat Res
(2013) - et al.
Merits and capabilities of helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) in traumatized patients
Technol Health Care
(2012) - et al.
Association between helicopter vs ground emergency medical services and survival for adults with major trauma
JAMA
(2012)
Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Is it the H or the EMS in HEMS that has an impact on trauma patient mortality? A systematic review of the evidence
Emerg Med J
Impact of helicopter transport and hospital level on mortality of polytrauma patients
J Trauma
Helicopter transport: help or hindrance?
Curr Opin Crit Care
Impact of prehospital mode of transport after severe injury: a multicenter evaluation from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium
J Trauma Acute Care Surg
The impact of a rotorcraft aeromedical emergency care service on trauma mortality
JAMA
The impact of a physician as part of the aeromedical prehospital team in patients with blunt trauma
JAMA
Helicopter transport of injured children: system effectiveness and triage criteria
J Pediatr Surg
Emergency interhospital transport of the major trauma patient: air versus ground
J Trauma
Cited by (38)
A 12-month retrospective descriptive analysis of a single helicopter emergency medical service operator in four South African provinces
2023, African Journal of Emergency MedicineThe Impact of Prehospital Transport Mode on Mortality of Penetrating Trauma Patients
2020, Air Medical JournalCitation Excerpt :We acknowledge that these findings represent an association between modes of transport and mortality and not necessarily causation. Previous studies comparing specific modes of transport to one another have reported various results.9-24 However, most studies were limited by residual confounders, were not performed at a national level, did not compare more than 2 modes of transport, had a mixture of penetrating and blunt trauma, or had a limited number of subjects.
Challenges of helicopter emergency medical service: A qualitative content analysis in Iranian context
2018, Health Policy and TechnologyInfluence of Entrapment on Prehospital Management and the Hospital Course in Polytrauma Patients: A Retrospective Analysis in Air Rescue
2018, Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :This also came true for the rate of chest tube placement. Whereas the intubation rate was low for entrapped patients in the past decade (30.1%), the rate of endotracheal intubation in the literature has increased up to 69–72% (18,20,21). Regarding the percentage of fluid resuscitation, we found no difference with crystalloid solutions or with colloidal solutions.