Key result
Helicopter emergency medical services reduced time to angiography for distances >40 km (101 vs 132 mins, P=0.002) and increased ROSC in cardiac arrest (55.3% vs 36.8%, P=0.038) compared to ground.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare prognosis and time reduction between physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services and ground emergency medical services in acute myocardial infarction cases.
Does helicopter emergency medical services with a physician improve prognosis and reduce time to angiography compared to ground emergency medical services in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=1,399)
Yes
Does helicopter emergency medical services with a physician improve prognosis and reduce time to angiography compared to ground emergency medical services in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 55.3% vs 36.8%
p-value: p=0.038
HEMS with a physician reduces time to angiography for AMI patients at longer transport distances (>40 km) but does not improve overall prognosis compared to ground transport.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the prognosis and time reduction between helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) with a physician and ground emergency medical services (GEMS) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) cases. METHODS: This is a registry-based study of the Japan Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Registry from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018. RESULTS: A total of 605 cases of AMI were registered in the HEMS group and 794 cases in the GEMS group. In the cases of non-cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA), the prognosis between HEMS and GEMS did not differ significantly. Regarding the road distance, for ranges of 20 to 40 km and > 40 km, the times from the call to the angiography room were significantly shorter with HEMS than GEMS (median 91 vs. 97 minutes, P = .036 and 101 vs. 132 minutes, P = .002, respectively). In cases of CPA, HEMS had a higher rate of return of spontaneous circulation than GEMS (55.3% vs. 36.8%, P = .038), but HEMS had a lower prognosis than GEMS (22.9% vs. 38.9%, P = .036). CONCLUSION: The present study suggested that HEMS had an advantage in reducing the time to angiography in AMI cases of non-CPA. In cases of CPA, HEMS increased the return of spontaneous circulation without improving the prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishikura et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=1,399). Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) with a physician vs. Ground emergency medical services (GEMS) was evaluated on Return of spontaneous circulation in cases of cardiopulmonary arrest (p=0.038). Helicopter emergency medical services reduced time to angiography for distances >40 km (101 vs 132 mins, P=0.002) and increased ROSC in cardiac arrest (55.3% vs 36.8%, P=0.038) compared to ground.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: