Air or Ground Transport to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit: Does It Really Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Critically ill patients requiring urgent interventions or subspecialty care often require transport over significant distances to tertiary care centers. The optimal method of transportation (air vs. ground) is unknown. We investigated whether air transport was associated with lower mortality for patients being transferred to a specialized critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all adult patients transferred to the CCRU at the University of Maryland Medical Center in 2018. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay and the time to the operating room (OR) for patients undergoing urgent procedures. We performed optimal 1:2 propensity score matching for each patient's need for air transport. RESULTS: We matched 198 patients transported by air to 382 patients transported by ground. There was no significant difference between demographics, the initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or hospital outcomes between groups. One hundred sixty-four (83%) of the patients transported via air survived to hospital discharge compared with 307 (80%) of those transported by ground (P = .46). Patients transported via air arrived at the CCRU more quickly (127 [100-178] vs. 223 [144-332] minutes, P < .001) and were more likely (60 patients, 30%) to undergo urgent surgical operation within 12 hours of CCRU arrival (30% vs. 17%, P < .001). For patients taken to the OR within 12 hours of arriving at the CCRU, patients transported by air were more likely to go to the OR after 200 minutes since the transfer request (P = .001). CONCLUSION: The transportation mode used to facilitate interfacility transfer was not significantly associated with hospital mortality or the length of stay for critically ill patients.

Role of the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit in a Comprehensive Stroke Center: Operations for Mechanical Thrombectomy During the Pandemic.

Introduction: Standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) includes prompt evaluation for urgent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) at a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). During the start of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), there were reports about disruption to emergency department (ED) operations and delays in management of patients with AIS-LVO. In this study we investigate the outcome and operations for patients who were transferred from different EDs to an academic CSC's critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU), which specializes in expeditious transfer of time-sensitive disease. Methods: This was a pre-post retrospective study using prospectively collected clinical data from our CSC's stroke registry. Adult patients who were transferred from any ED to the CCRU and underwent MT were eligible. We compared time intervals in the pre-pandemic (PP) period between January 2018- February 2020, such as ED in-out and CCRU arrival-angiography, to those during the pandemic (DP) between March 2020-May 31, 2021. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify which time intervals, besides clinical factors, were associated with good neurological outcome (90-day modified Rankin scale 0-2). Results: We analyzed 203 patients: 135 (66.5%) in the PP group and 68 (33.5%) in the DP group. Time from ED triage to computed tomography (difference 7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -1, P < 0.01) for the DP group was statistically longer, but ED in-out was similar for both groups. Time from CCRU arrival to angiography (difference 9 minutes, 95% CI 4-13, P < 0.01) for the DP group was shorter. Forty-nine percent of the DP group achieved mRS ≤ 2 vs 32% for the PP group (difference -17%, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03, P < 0.01). The CART identified initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, age, ED in-and-out time, and CCRU arrival-to-angiography time as important predictors of good outcome. Conclusion: Overall, the care process in EDs and at this single CSC for patients requiring MT were not heavily affected by the pandemic, as certain time metrics during the pandemic were statistically shorter than pre-pandemic intervals. Time intervals such as ED in-and-out and CCRU arrival-to-angiography were important factors in achieving good neurologic outcomes. Further study is necessary to confirm our observation and improve operational efficiency in the future.