UNI-MB - logo
UMNIK - logo
 
E-resources
Peer reviewed Open access
  • Emergency Medical Services ...
    Newgard, Craig D., MD, MPH; Schmicker, Robert H., MS; Hedges, Jerris R., MD, MS, MMM; Trickett, John P., BScN; Davis, Daniel P., MD; Bulger, Eileen M., MD; Aufderheide, Tom P., MD; Minei, Joseph P., MD; Hata, J. Steven, MD, FCCP, MSc; Gubler, K. Dean, DO, MPH; Brown, Todd B., MD, MSPH; Yelle, Jean-Denis, MD; Bardarson, Berit, RN; Nichol, Graham, MD, MPH

    Annals of emergency medicine, 03/2010, Volume: 55, Issue: 3
    Journal Article

    Study objective The first hour after the onset of out-of-hospital traumatic injury is referred to as the “golden hour,” yet the relationship between time and outcome remains unclear. We evaluate the association between emergency medical services (EMS) intervals and mortality among trauma patients with field-based physiologic abnormality. Methods This was a secondary analysis of an out-of-hospital, prospective cohort registry of adult (aged ≥15 years) trauma patients transported by 146 EMS agencies to 51 Level I and II trauma hospitals in 10 sites across North America from December 1, 2005, through March 31, 2007. Inclusion criteria were systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, respiratory rate less than 10 or greater than 29 breaths/min, Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12, or advanced airway intervention. The outcome was inhospital mortality. We evaluated EMS intervals (activation, response, on-scene, transport, and total time) with logistic regression and 2-step instrumental variable models, adjusted for field-based confounders. Results There were 3,656 trauma patients available for analysis, of whom 806 (22.0%) died. In multivariable analyses, there was no significant association between time and mortality for any EMS interval: activation (odds ratio OR 1.00; 95% confidence interval CI 0.95 to 1.05), response (OR 1.00; 95% CI 9.97 to 1.04), on-scene (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01), transport (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01), or total EMS time (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01). Subgroup and instrumental variable analyses did not qualitatively change these findings. Conclusion In this North American sample, there was no association between EMS intervals and mortality among injured patients with physiologic abnormality in the field.