Why the study?
Does prehospital thrombolytic treatment with anistreplase improve efficacy and safety compared to in-hospital treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does prehospital thrombolytic treatment with anistreplase improve efficacy and safety compared to in-hospital treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Prehospital delivery of intravenous thrombolytic therapy in a medium-sized town was found to be unfeasible, leading to unnecessary time delays.
Prehospital ECG prolongs time to AMI treatment; challenges feasibility of prehospital thrombolysis in medium-sized towns.
In this study we compared efficacy and safety of prehospital with in-hospital thrombolytic treatment with anistreplase in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Three-hundred and fifty patients with chest pain were screened for eligibility by the municipal ambulance staff and/or the general practitioner. Patients were included in the absence of contraindications and if the telephone-transmitted ECG showed AMI. In a 6 month period 16 patients (5%) were eligible, but only seven (2%) were randomized. Age over 70 years, duration of chest pain for longer than 4 h and logistic problems were the major factors responsible for the low inclusion rate. The mean time spent at home with and without the ECG procedure was 38 +/- 14 and 14 +/- 8 min, respectively (P less than 0.001). These results demonstrate that in a medium sized town prehospital delivery of intravenous thrombolytic therapy by paramedics and/or the general practitioner is not feasible, leads to unnecessary time delay and may therefore yield no clinical benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brügemann et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: