Study: Helicopter beats ambulance for trauma patients
BALTIMORE, Md. — If you are severely injured, a helicopter flight to a top-level trauma center will boost your chance of survival over ground transport. That’s the conclusion of a rigorous, national comparison of the effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services, published in the April 18, 2012, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
According to this study, if you are severely injured and get to a trauma center faster (by helicopter) as opposed to slower (by ambulance), you stand a better chance of survival. That makes sense, since in many cases quicker surgery results in better survival rates. We’ve known since the Civil War that getting patients into surgery earlier increases the chances of survival. Not exactly news.
Survival after trauma has increased in recent years with improvements in emergency medical services coupled with the rapid transportation of trauma patients to centers capable of providing the most advanced care. What has not been clear until this study, is the effectiveness of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS), a limited and expensive resource, compared to its alternative, ground emergency medical services (GEMS).
Well, not exactly true, and this study isn’t going to answer the real question. Which, as has been raised for a number of years now, is this. Are we (as an industry) flying too many patients for whom time is not important and who will do as well by being driven as opposed to flown. In other words, where is the cutoff in acuity for flying versus driving?
“We looked at the sickest patients with the most severe injuries and applied sophisticated statistical analyses to the largest aggregation of trauma data in the world,” says the study’s principal investigator, Samuel M. Galvagno Jr., D.O., Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Divisions of Trauma Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine. “We were careful at every step to balance all the potential other factors that could explain any benefit of the helicopter. After all that, the survival advantage of helicopters remained,” says Galvagno.
Dr. Galvagno is on the staff of the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, where many of the life-saving practices in modern trauma medicine were pioneered. The Shock Trauma Center was the first fully integrated trauma center in the world, and remains the epicenter for trauma research and training both nationally and internationally today.
The principal investigator for this study works at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, which coincidentally is heavily invested in HEMS. How surprised should I be that a study run by a doctor at a trauma center that gets the vast majority of it’s patients by helicopter shows that patients who arrive by helicopter fare better than those that don’t?
“The use of helicopter emergency medical services in the United States has been a controversial subject over the last decade or so, centering on the costs and the potential for crashes, says Thomas M. Scalea, M.D., the Francis X. Kelly Professor of Trauma in the Department of Surgery; director of the Program in Trauma, University of Maryland School of Medicine; and physician-in-chief at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. “Previous studies have found a survival benefit by using helicopters, but the studies were small and left some doubt. This study in JAMA is very robust,” says Dr. Scalea.
Dr. Scalea as you will note is the boss at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, so presumably he’s Dr. Galvagno’s boss. So, the guy who is the boss to the guy that says that helicopters are better is the guy who runs the center that is heavily invested in having patients coming in by helicopter. Another big surprise here.
“Dr. Galvagno’s research demonstrates how statistics and technology can be used to help researchers mine huge databases for useful information to help determine best care for patients and appropriate utilization of limited health care funds,” says E. Albert Reece, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., vice president for medical affairs, University of Maryland; the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor; and dean, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Were I the skeptical type, I’d says that Dr. Galvagno’s research shows how statistics and technology can be used to prove anything you want to prove. Good thing I’m the non skeptical, trusting sort.
The question that isn’t answered here, in fact it’s not even asked, is where is the cutoff for sending patients in by helicopter as opposed to sending them by ground ambulance? The second unasked question is, when do patients need a trauma center? The study looked at severely injured patients, those who unquestionably needed a trauma center. It looked at two different modes of transportation, one faster, one slower. It asked which would do better, those getting to definitive care sooner or those getting to definitive care later. Unsurprisingly the study found that severely injured patients did better when they get to trauma centers more quickly. You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure that one out, but surprisingly Dr. Galvagno used this research as part of his Doctorate in Public Health program.
This study was performed without any commercial funding or extramural sponsorship. Dr. Galvagno was funded, in part, by an institutional training grant when this study was initiated as part of his Ph.D. program at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Pretty neat, getting your homework published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. All I ever got was mine taped to the refrigerator.
Still, it seems like a PH.D. in Duh! to me. Getting acutely injured patients to definitive care faster means that more of them will survive. We’ve only known that since the 1860s, but now we have numbers to prove it. Even at that, the study showed that one life was saved for each 65 or 69 patients flown to a Level 1 or Level 2 trauma center. Now, we need to compare that in a meaningful way to the number of crashes and lives lost to see if the cost in lives outweighs the benefits lives or vice versa.
Again, what we don’t know is where is the cutoff for defining who goes by air and who goes by ground. Until we know that, which is what patients will have a good outcome or no change in outcome no matter which mode of transport is used, we can’t have a real debate over to what extent helicopters are really helpful in saving lives.
Theoretically, if we were able to use teleportation to instantly transport patients they’d do even better. Dr. McCoy said so, didn’t he? Then again, if our molecular pattern were stored in the transporter’s memory banks, what is to keep patients from being treated by being transported and using the molecular pattern to restore them to their pre injury state of health? I need a grant. Well, two. One to invent the transporter and one to see if patient’s do better when beamed to Shock Trauma as opposed to being flown in by archaic helicopters. But, I digress into Sheldon Cooper like fantasy.
The big question yet to be answered, and I’m repeating it for the sake of clarity, is where is the cut off for flying patients versus driving them? The related question is, where is the cut off for patients needing to be in a Level 1 or Level 2 trauma center and those that will do just as well in a community hospital?
Once we know the answers then we’ll have a much more realistic idea of when patients need to be flown and when they don’t.








