Outcomes of Patients Transferred to Tertiary Center by Life-Saving System in Saudi Arabia. A Propensity Score Matching Observational Study

Background: Inter-hospital transfer is intended to provide access to centralized special care for critically ill patients, when resources in their hospitals are not available. However, an empirical gap exists in available evidence, as outcomes of transferred patients to higher centers are inconsistent.
Method: Single center propensity score matching retrospective observational study. Life-Saving transfers during 2023 were matched to direct admissions to the ICU. Hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, and costs of both groups were compared.
Results: During the study period, 328 Life-Saving transfers were matched to 656 direct admissions. Propensity score matching eliminated all imbalances between groups. Hospital mortality was not different between groups, there were 114 (34.8%) hospital mortalities of Life-Saving transfers, while there were 216 (32.9%) hospital mortalities of direct admissions, with a percent difference of 1.9% (95% CI: -4.5%, 8.4%); p value = 0.6, this result persisted in the sensitivity analysis. There were no differences in mortality risks for all the studied subgroups except pediatric patients. ICU length of stay of direct admissions and Life-Saving transfers were 10 ± 13.1 and 11.6 ± 12.4 days respectively, mean difference was statistically significant (-1.6 [95% CI: -3.2, 0.1]; p = 0.005). Life-Saving transfers entailed significantly higher costs per admission by 28,200 thousand SAR (95% CI: 26,400 – 30,000; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Our study shows no difference in hospital mortality between Life-Saving transfers and direct admissions to ICU, however, Life-Saving transfers had a longer ICU length of stay, and higher costs per admission.