Person:

Mian, Matthew

Background: The clinical benefit of helicopter transport over ground transportation for interfacility transport is unproven. We sought to determine actual practice patterns, utilization, and outcomes of patients undergoing interfacility transport for neurosurgical conditions. Methodology/Principal Findings: We retrospectively examined all interfacility helicopter transfers to a single trauma center during 2008. We restricted our analysis to those transfers leading either to admission to the neurosurgical service or to formal consultation upon arrival. Major exclusion criteria included transport from the scene, death during transport, and transport to any area of the hospital other than the emergency department. The primary outcome was time interval to invasive intervention. Secondary outcomes were estimated ground transportation times from the referring hospital, admitting disposition, and discharge disposition. Of 526 candidate interfacility helicopter transfers to our emergency department in 2008, we identified 167 meeting study criteria. Seventy-five (45%) of these patients underwent neurosurgical intervention. The median time to neurosurgical intervention ranged from 1.0 to 117.8 hours, varying depending on the diagnosis. For 101 (60%) of the patients, estimated driving time from the referring institution was less than one hour. Four patients (2%) expired in the emergency department, and 34 patients (20%) were admitted to a non-ICU setting. Six patients were discharged home within 24 hours. For those admitted, in-hospital mortality was 28%. Conclusions/Significance: Many patients undergoing interfacility transfer for neurosurgical evaluation are inappropriately triaged to helicopter transport, as evidenced by actual times to intervention at the accepting institution and estimated ground transportation times from the referring institution. In a time when there is growing interest in health care cost containment, practitioners must exercise discretion in the selection of patients for air ambulance transport—particularly when it may not bear influence on clinical outcome. Neurosurgical evaluation via telemedicine may be one strategy for improving air transport triage.

Objective: Commonly, patients undergoing craniotomy are admitted to an intensive care setting post-operatively to allow for close monitoring. We aim to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone elective craniotomies require intensive care unit level interventions or experience significant complications during the post-operative period to identify a subset of patients for whom an alternative to ICU level care may be appropriate. Methods: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a prospective, consecutive cohort of adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy was established at the Massachusetts General Hospital between the dates of April 2010 and March 2011. Inclusion criteria were intradural operations requiring craniotomy performed on adults (18 years of age or greater). Exclusion criteria were cases of an urgent or emergent nature, patients who remained intubated post-operatively, and patients who had a ventriculostomy drain in place at the conclusion of the case. Results: 400 patients were analyzed. Univariate analysis revealed that diabetics (p = 0.00047), patients who required intra-operative blood product administration (p = 0.032), older patients (p < 0.0001), patients with higher intra-operative blood losses (p = 0.041), and patients who underwent longer surgical procedures (p = 0.021) were more likely to require ICU-level interventions or experience significant post-operative complications. Multivariate analysis only found diabetes (p = 0.0005) and age (p = 0.0091) to be predictive of a patient’s need for post-operative intensive care unit admission. Conclusions: Diabetes and older age predict the need for ICU-level intervention after elective craniotomy. Properly selected patients may not require post-craniotomy ICU monitoring. Further study of resource utilization is necessary to validate these preliminary findings, particularly in different hospital types.