##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 155 No. 10 (2025)

Clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with neonatal transports in Switzerland: a retrospective single-centre cohort study

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2025;155:4307
Published
20.10.2025

Summary

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of patient and transport characteristics with mortality and morbidity of neonates who require interfacility transport in central Switzerland.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study including neonates transported by the neonatal transport service of the Bern University Children՚s Hospital between January 2019 and December 2022. We reviewed the transport protocols and electronic patient charts of the hospitalisation after transport, and investigated the association of patient characteristics, clinical management before transport and transport characteristics (transport mode, transport times, adverse events) with outcomes. The primary outcome was death or impairment; secondary outcomes were lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, inotrope-free days and respiratory support-free days following transport.

RESULTS: Of 807 neonates who were included, 105 (13%) showed an unfavourable outcome (death: 25 patients, impairment at time of discharge: 80). We observed a significant association between patients’ diagnosis and primary outcome (p <0.001). Patients with a primary neurological disorder (n = 120, 14.9%) had a significantly higher risk of an unfavourable outcome (odds ratio [OR]: 5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46–10.9) compared to patients with a cardiac diagnosis. Death or impairment (primary outcome) was more likely to be observed in ground-transported patients than in air-transported patients (crude OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.20–4.07, p = 0.009). This effect remained significant after adjustment for the potential confounding effect of a selection of patient and administrative characteristics (adjusted OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.14–4.68, p = 0.018). Emergency transports, extended medical support before transport, a five-minute APGAR score <6 and a Sarnat score ≥2 were associated with an unfavourable outcome in the crude analysis, but not in the adjusted analysis. There was no significant association between stabilisation time or total transport time and primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates potential risk factors for morbidity and mortality in neonates requiring transport from the birth facility to a specialised neonatal care centre. The relevance of the primary diagnosis should influence logistical transport decision-making in the future. In particular, children with neurological diseases require special attention. As ground transport showed a worse outcome than air transport, the helicopter service might be considered more frequently. Transport times seem to be of less importance in regions with short transport distances, but optimising dispatch and call to arrival times would probably improve transport efficiency.

References

  1. 1. Schierholz E. Flight physiology: science of air travel with neonatal transport considerations. Adv Neonatal Care. 2010 Aug;10(4):196–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0b013e3181e94709
  2. 2. Bailey V, Szyld E, Cagle K, Kurtz D, Chaaban H, Wu D, et al. Modern Neonatal Transport: Sound and Vibration Levels and Their Impact on Physiological Stability. Am J Perinatol. 2019 Mar;36(4):352–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668171
  3. 3. Orr RA, Felmet KA, Han Y, McCloskey KA, Dragotta MA, Bills DM, et al. Pediatric specialized transport teams are associated with improved outcomes. Pediatrics. 2009 Jul;124(1):40–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-0515
  4. 4. Calhoun A, Keller M, Shi J, Brancato C, Donovan K, Kraus D, et al. Do pediatric teams affect outcomes of injured children requiring inter-hospital transport? Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21(2):192–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2016.1218983
  5. 5. Eliason SH, Whyte H, Dow K, Cronin CM, Lee S; Canadian Neonatal Network. Variations in transport outcomes of outborn infants among Canadian neonatal intensive care units. Am J Perinatol. 2013 May;30(5):377–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1324706
  6. 6. Joseph AM, Horvat CM, Evans IV, Kuch BA, Kahn JM. Helicopter versus ground ambulance transport for interfacility transfer of critically ill children. Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Nov;61:44–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.032
  7. 7. Frid I, Ågren J, Kjellberg M, Normann E, Sindelar R. Critically ill neonates displayed stable vital parameters and reduced metabolic acidosis during neonatal emergency airborne transport in Sweden. Acta Paediatr. 2018 Aug;107(8):1357–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14295
  8. 8. Razaz N, Boyce WT, Brownell M, Jutte D, Tremlett H, Marrie RA, et al. Five-minute Apgar score as a marker for developmental vulnerability at 5 years of age. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 Mar;101(2):F114–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-308458
  9. 9. Mietzsch U, Kolnik SE, Wood TR, Natarajan N, Gonzalez FF, Glass H, et al.; HEAL Trial Study Group. Evolution of the Sarnat exam and association with 2-year outcomes in infants with moderate or severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy: a secondary analysis of the HEAL Trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2024 Apr;109(3):308–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2023-326102
  10. 10. Schumacher S, Mitzlaff B, Mohrmann C, Fiedler KM, Heep A, Beske F, et al. Characteristics and special challenges of neonatal emergency transports. Early Hum Dev. 2024 May;192:106012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2024.106012
  11. 11. Leemann T, Bernet V, Grass B, Hagmann C. Neonatal transport in Switzerland: a retrospective single-centre analysis - quo vadis? Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Aug;150(3334):w20308. doi: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20308
  12. 12. McEvoy CG, Descloux E, Barazzoni MS, Diaw CS, Tolsa JF, Roth-Kleiner M. Evaluation of Neonatal Transport in Western Switzerland: A Model of Perinatal Regionalization. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. 2017 May;11:1179556517709021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1179556517709021
  13. 13. Finanzdirektion Kanton Bern. Bevölkerungsbewegung: Bevölkerungswachstum im Jahr. 2023. Available from: www.fin.be.ch/de/start/themen/OeffentlicheStatistik/bevoelkerungsstatistik/bevoelkerungsbewegung.html
  14. 14. Killion C, Stein HM. The Impact of Air Ambulance Transport on Neonatal Outcomes. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2009;9(4):207–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.nainr.2009.09.008
  15. 15. Bouchut JC, Van Lancker E, Chritin V, Gueugniaud PY. Physical stressors during neonatal transport: helicopter compared with ground ambulance. Air Med J. 2011;30(3):134–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2010.11.001
  16. 16. Bellini C, De Angelis LC, Secchi S, Massirio P, Andreato C, Polleri G, et al. Helicopter Neonatal Transport: First Golden Hour at Birth Is Useful Tool Guiding Activation of Appropriate Resources. Air Med J. 2020;39(6):454–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2020.09.002
  17. 17. Hirata K, Nozaki M, Mochizuki N, Hirano S, Wada K. Impact of Time to Neonatal Transport on Outcomes of Transient Tachypnea of the Newborn. Am J Perinatol. 2019 Aug;36(10):1090–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676490
  18. 18. Chien CY, Tsai SL, Tsai LH, Chen CB, Seak CJ, Weng YM, et al. Impact of Transport Time and Cardiac Arrest Centers on the Neurological Outcome After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Jun;9(11):e015544. doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015544
  19. 19. Chakkarapani AA, Whyte HE, Massé E, Castaldo M, Yang J, Lee KS; Canadian Neonatal Transport Network. Procedural Interventions and Stabilization Times During Interfacility Neonatal Transport. Air Med J. 2020;39(4):276–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2020.04.007
  20. 20. Schultz RM, Natarajan G, Berk J, Wallace L. Inter-facility transports of critically ill neonates. Pediatrics. 2019 August;144(2_MeetingAbstract):869. 10.1542/peds.144.2MA9.869.
  21. 21. Gray MM, Riley T, Greene ND, Mastroianni R, McLean C, Umoren RA, et al. Neonatal Transport Safety Metrics and Adverse Event Reporting: A Systematic Review. Air Med J. 2023;42(4):283–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2023.05.001
  22. 22. Lee KS. Neonatal transport metrics and quality improvement in a regional transport service. Transl Pediatr. 2019 Jul;8(3):233–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/tp.2019.07.04
  23. 23. Lee SK, Aziz K, Dunn M, Clarke M, Kovacs L, Ojah C, et al.; Canadian Neonatal Network. Transport Risk Index of Physiologic Stability, version II (TRIPS-II): a simple and practical neonatal illness severity score. Am J Perinatol. 2013 May;30(5):395–400.
  24. 24. Qu W, Shen Y, Qi Y, Jiang M, Zheng X, Zhang J, et al. Comparison of four neonatal transport scoring methods in the prediction of mortality risk in full-term, out-born infants: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Eur J Pediatr. 2022 Aug;181(8):3005–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-022-04506-8
  25. 25. Schwartz HP, Bigham MT, Schoettker PJ, Meyer K, Trautman MS, Insoft RM; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Transport Medicine. Quality Metrics in Neonatal and Pediatric Critical Care Transport: A National Delphi Project. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct;16(8):711–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000000477