Initiation of thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction by emergency physicians: The Hong Kong experience

Objectives: To compare door‐to‐needle time and complications for eligible acute myocardial infarction patients receiving thrombolytic therapy in the emergency department and in the coronary care unit. Methods: A prospective study was performed involving all patients with acute myocardial infarction who received thrombolytic therapy either in the emergency department or the coronary care unit during the period January 1995 to March 1996. Patients’ time interval between registration in ED and receiving thrombolytic therapy (door‐to‐needle time) was the main audit parameter. Other emergency department information collected included inappropriate administration of thrombolytic therapy and the occurrence and management of complications of thrombolytic therapy. Results: In the United Christian Hospital, Hong Kong, 148 patients with acute myocardial infarction received thrombolysis. Sixty‐eight cases (group A) received thrombolysis in the emergency department and 80 cases underwent thrombolysis in the coronary care unit. The 80 cases in the coronary care unit included 47 cases (group B) whose diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and eligibility for thrombolysis were established in the emergency department, and 33 cases (group C) in which there were difficulties in diagnosis or exclusion of contraindications for thrombolysis. The mean door‐to‐needle times were 31.3 min in group A (95% CI, 27.6–35.1), 54 min in group B (95% CI, 47.8–60.2) and 171.8 min in group C (95% CI, 121.8–211.8). Inappropriate use of thrombolysis in the emergency department occurred in 2.9% of all cases. The most common complication of thrombolysis in the emergency department was hypotension (4.4%). All cases were successfully managed in the emergency department. There was one case of anaphylaxis during streptokinase infusion that required resuscitation in the emergency department. There were no deaths of patients receiving thrombolysis in the emergency department. Conclusion The initial experience of a regional hospital in Hong Kong supports the view that initiation of thrombolytic therapy in the emergency department can achieve a more favourable door‐to‐needle time without compromising the care of acute myocardial infarction patients.