Why the study?
Does cardiac nurse practitioner-led thrombolysis reduce door-to-needle time in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction?
Does cardiac nurse practitioner-led thrombolysis reduce door-to-needle time in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction?
Cardiac nurse practitioner-led thrombolysis is a safe and effective strategy to significantly reduce door-to-needle times in the management of acute myocardial infarction.
Should not yet change practice; leaves open whether nurse practitioner-led thrombolysis improves outcomes in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to audit the impact of cardiac nurse practitioner led thrombolysis as a method of reducing call to needle times for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a single district hospital. METHODS: This was a prospectively planned, observational study, comparing time delay between arrival at hospital and the administration of thrombolysis ('door to needle' time) in patients presenting with AMI in a district general hospital serving a population of 270000. The 6 months before and 6 months after initiation of the scheme were compared. RESULTS: There were 151 consecutive patients (undergoing 163 thrombolysis episodes). The median door to needle time fell from 60 min (range 42-110 min) to 30 min (range 20-61 min) (p<0.01). In those patients eligible for immediate thrombolysis the number of cases treated within 30 min of arrival rose from 10/58 (17 per cent) to 48/64 (75 per cent) (p<0.01). The proportion of cases where there was an initial delay as a result of non-diagnostic ECG or possible contra-indication to therapy remained constant, 20/78 (25 per cent) cases before and 21/85 (25 per cent) cases after initiation of the scheme. The number of cases of inappropriate thrombolysis fell from 73 per cent to 30 per cent. CONCLUSION: The provision of i.v. thrombolysis by cardiac nurse practitioners is safe and should be considered as a method for achieving acceptable door to needle times in the management of acute myocardial infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lloyd et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: