Why the study?
Does emergency department administration of thrombolytics improve door-to-needle times compared to coronary care unit administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does emergency department administration of thrombolytics improve door-to-needle times compared to coronary care unit administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Administration of thrombolytics in the emergency department rather than the coronary care unit is associated with shorter door-to-needle times for patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Supports shifting thrombolysis to ED for faster treatment; leaves open mortality effects in this cross-sectional analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To describe revascularization practice for acute myocardial infarction in a sample of Australasian hospitals during 1999. DESIGN: Survey for the 1999 calendar year. SETTING: Hospitals with Australasian College for Emergency Medicine-accredited emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight hospitals of 80 surveyed (60%), comprising 15 tertiary and 33 non-tertiary hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from arrival in emergency department to initiation of thrombolytic therapy, site of therapy, agent used, mortality and intracranial haemorrhage rates. RESULTS: Approximately 30% of patients with acute myocardial infarction had revascularization therapy. Sixty-two per cent of patients receiving thrombolytics were given this treatment in the emergency department, the remainder in the coronary care unit. Overall median door-to-needle times were 35.0 min emergency department versus 48.3 min coronary care unit. Streptokinase was used for 58.3% of thrombolysis. In-hospital mortality of thrombolysed patients was 6.7% in the emergency department versus 4.3% in the coronary care unit with intracranial haemorrhage rates of 0.8% emergency department and 0.7% coronary care unit. CONCLUSIONS: Overall times to thrombolysis and outcome rates in this sample were within internationally reported figures. Emergency department times were shorter than in coronary care unit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mountain et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: