Emergency helicopter transport can be pricey and, as recent reports of aircraft crashes show, potentially dangerous. Such downsides have sparked some concerns that transporting trauma patients by air may not be worth the risk. So researchers at Stanford set out to investigate how often medical helicopters needed to help save critically injured patients' lives in order to be considered cost-effective when compared with ambulances.
The researchers found that if an additional 1.6 percent of seriously injured patients survive after being transported by helicopter from the scene of injury to a level-1 or level-2 trauma center, then such transport should be considered cost-effective. In other words, if 90 percent of seriously injured trauma victims survive with the help of ground transport, 91.6 need to survive with the help of helicopter transport for it to be considered cost-effective.
The study... does not address whether most helicopter transport actually meets the additional 1.6 percent survivorship threshold.
"What we aimed to do is reduce the uncertainty about the factors that drive the cost-effective use of this important critical care resource," said the study's lead author, M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an instructor in the Division of Emergency Medicine. "The goal is to continue to save the lives of those who need air transport, but spare flight personnel the additional risks of flying - and patients with minor injuries the additional cost - when helicopter transport is not likely to be cost-effective." (Helicopter medical services generally bill patients' insurance providers directly, but patients may have to pay some of the bill out of pocket, or, if they're uninsured, possibly all of it.)
The findings only apply to situations and locations where patients could be taken by both ambulance and helicopter to a trauma center. Researchers said that in scenarios where ground transportation to a trauma center wasn't feasible, then transport by helicopter was preferable.
Photo by Brett Neilson