These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: HEMS vs. Ground-BLS care in traumatic cardiac arrest.
    Author: Di Bartolomeo S, Sanson G, Nardi G, Michelutto V, Scian F.
    Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care; 2005; 9(1):79-84. PubMed ID: 16036833.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a top-level type of prehospital care, made of helicopter, physician, and advanced life support (ALS) procedures, improves the outcome of blunt trauma victims found in cardiac arrest (CA) as compared with a simpler type, composed of ground ambulance, nurse, and expanded basic life support (BLS). METHODS: This was a cohort study from the data set of a prospective, population-based, 12-month study targeting the 1,200,000 inhabitants of the Italian region Friuli Venezia Giulia. RESULTS: Fifty-six victims received the higher level of care (helicopter emergency medical services [HEMS] group) and 73 received the lower one (ground-BLS group). The two groups were homogeneous for mechanism of injury, gender, and time interval before cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Age was lower in the ground-BLS group. The percentage of patients in which CPR was attempted was significantly higher in the HEMS group (43% vs. 20%; CI 0.061 to 0.379). On-scene return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was also more likely in the HEMS group (37.5% of attempted CPRs vs. 6.6%; CI 0.027 to 0.591). None of the patients evacuated from the scene without ROSC ever attained it in hospital. This policy was virtually exclusive to the ground-BLS group. Survival to hospital discharge was 3.5% (severely disabled) in the HEMS group and 0% in the ground-BLS group (CI -0.008 to 0.078). CONCLUSION: A top-level type of prehospital care had significantly more chances to resuscitate blunt trauma victims found in CA as compared with a simpler level. No significant benefit on long-term outcome was found, but more cases might be needed in future studies because of the inevitably low number of survivors.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]