Background The evacuation of emergency cases by air, usually by helicopter, is controversial because of the cost of the programme, the possibility of an accident (especially in an urban area), and unproven benefit.
But such evacuations cannot be studied by a random intervention (eg, air versus ground ambulance).
We used an expert-panel approach to estimate the health outcome for patients transferred by emergency helicopter compared with the potential outcome if they had gone by surface ambulance.
Methods The helicopter programme is based at the University Hospital of Tromso in northern Norway. 370 case-reports of helicopter evacuation from rural areas were screened by anaesthetists for routine and case-specific data.
Two expert panels assessed the cases for potential additional health benefit arising from the fact of helicopter evacuation.
The panels used a modified Delphi technique to reach consensus in life-years gained.
One panel met for cases aged under 15 and pregnant women, the other for older cases.
Findings 240 of the 370 cases were male (65%) ; the age range for both sexes was 0-86 years.
The most common diagnosis for the 55 cases aged under 15 was infection (49%) ; in older patients, cardiovascular disease dominated (50%). Trauma accounted for just under a fifth of cases in both groups.
On average, the patients arrived 69 min (range 0-615) earlier in hospital than if they had gone by ground transport.
For 283 cases, the initial screening by the a...
Mots-clés Pascal : Hélicoptère, Evacuation personne, Urgence, Coût, Ambulance, Transport sanitaire, Efficacité, Risque, Norvège, Europe, Survie, Epidémiologie, Pronostic, Homme, Etude comparative
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Helicopter, Person evacuation, Emergency, Costs, Ambulance, Medical transport, Efficiency, Risk, Norway, Europe, Survival, Epidemiology, Prognosis, Human, Comparative study
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 96-0265340
Code Inist : 002B27B14C. Création : 199608.