↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective comparison of helicopter transport versus ground transport in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A retrospective comparison of helicopter transport versus ground transport in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12245-016-0115-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rahul Kashyap, Peter W. Anderson, Abhay Vakil, Christopher S. Russi, Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba

Abstract

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) extend the reach of a tertiary care center significantly. However, its role in septic patients is unclear. Our study was performed to clarify the role of HEMS in severe sepsis and septic shock. This is a single-center retrospective cohort study. This study was performed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, in years 2007-2009. This study included a total of 181 consecutive adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit meeting criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock within 24 h of admission and transported from an acute care facility by a helicopter or ground ambulance. The primary predictive variable was the mode of transport. Multiple demographic, clinical, and treatment variables were collected and analyzed with univariate analysis followed by multivariate analysis. The patients transported by HEMS had a significantly faster median transport time (1.3 versus 1.7 h, p < 0.01), faster time to meeting criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (1.2 versus 2.9 h, p < 0.01), a higher SOFA score (9 versus 7, p < 0.01), higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (38 versus 18 %, p = 0.013), higher need for invasive mechanical ventilation (60 versus 41 % p = 0.014), higher ICU mortality (13.3 versus 4.1 %, p = 0.024), and an increased hospital mortality (17 versus 30 %, p = 0.04) when compared to those transported by ground. Distance traveled was not an independent predictor of hospital mortality on multivariate analysis. HEMS transport is associated with faster transport time, carries sicker patients, and is associated with higher hospital mortality compared with ground ambulance services for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,322,769
of 24,933,778 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#341
of 639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,899
of 348,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,933,778 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.