• Willem Stassen, Sandrella Alkzair, and Lisa Kurland.
• Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: willem.stassen@uct.ac.za.
• Air Med. J. 2020 Nov 1; 39 (6): 479-483.

ObjectiveSub-Saharan Africa carries a large trauma burden. Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) have been suggested to reduce prehospital time and mortality. It is not clear whether HEMS infers a mortality benefit over ground transport in South Africa. This study aimed to determine whether HEMS improved 30-day mortality over ground emergency medical services (GEMS).MethodsA retrospective, case-control study was undertaken for major trauma patients transported to a private trauma center in Johannesburg. A 1-year cohort of HEMS patients was extracted and matched to GEMS patients based on mechanism, injury severity or percentage of the total body surface area burned, age, sex, and comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for 30-day mortality was calculated to determine the risk of death.ResultsA total of 822 cases (HEMS: 272 [33%], GEMS: 550 [67%]) were reviewed. We included 410 patients in the matched cohort with equal distribution between transportation modes. The OR for mortality in the total cohort was 2.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6; P = .003) for HEMS patients, whereas in the matched cohort the OR was 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-3.4; P = .503) for patients transported by HEMS.ConclusionIn a matched cohort of major trauma patients, HEMS does not seem to improve mortality over GEMS. These results might reflect the South African HEMS dispatch model.Copyright © 2020 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…