Utopia for Norwegian helicopter emergency medical services: Estimating the number of bases needed to radically bring down response times, and lives needed to be saved for cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) throughout Europe are generally on scene within 10-15 minutes. In Norway, however, with its 13 HEMS bases, only 75% of the population can currently be reached within half an hour. We estimate the number of HEMS bases needed to reach the full Norwegian population within 10-15 minutes, and discuss implications regarding cost effectiveness. METHODS: Using geographic location and population characteristics from Norway's 428 municipalities as input to the Maximal Covering Location Problem-a mathematical location optimization model-we estimate the number of HEMS bases required along with accompanying personnel and healthcare costs. We estimate the minimum number of lives that would have to be saved to achieve a net social benefit of zero. RESULTS: To reach 99% or 100% of the Norwegian population by HEMS within 15 minutes 78 or 104 bases are needed, respectively. The incremental need for personnel going from 20 to 15 minutes for 99/100% of the population is 602/728, with an accompanying incremental cost of 228/276 million EURO per year. A yearly total of 280/339 additional lives would have to be saved to obtain a net social benefit of zero. Then, the HEMS-system as a whole would be cost effective although the least efficient bases still would not be. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing Norwegian HEMS response times to 10-15 minutes requires a drastic increase in the number of HEMS bases needed. Choice of ethical philosophy (utilitarianism or egalitarianism) determines when the expansion might be considered cost effective.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent worldwide dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery, no high-level evidence supports the oncologic safety of this approach. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients with colorectal metastases. DESIGN: A single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial (OSLO-COMET [Oslo Randomized Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases Trial]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01516710). SETTING: Oslo University Hospital, the only provider of liver surgery for the 3 million inhabitants of southeastern Norway. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomly assigned to have open or laparoscopic liver resection. INTERVENTION: From February 2012 to January 2016, a total of 280 patients were included in the trial (laparoscopic surgery: n = 133; open surgery: n = 147). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity within 30 days. Five-year rates of overall and recurrence-free survival were predefined secondary end points. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 70 months, rates of 5-year overall survival were 54% in the laparoscopic group and 55% in the open group (between-group difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -11.3 to 12.3 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 0.93 [CI, 0.67 to 1.30]; P = 0.67). Rates of 5-year recurrence-free survival were 30% in the laparoscopic group and 36% in the open group (between-group difference, 6.0 percentage points [CI, -6.7 to 18.7 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 1.09 [CI, 0.80 to 1.49]; P = 0.57). LIMITATION: The trial was not powered to detect differences in secondary end points and was not designed to address a noninferiority hypothesis for survival outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial of laparoscopic and open liver surgery, no difference in survival outcomes was found between the treatment groups. However, differences in 5-year overall survival up to about 10 percentage points in either direction cannot be excluded. This trial should be followed by pragmatic multicenter trials and international registries. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.