Key result
EMS transport of AMI patients significantly decreased time to thrombolytic therapy (56.0 vs 78.0 min; p=0.018) and time to first ECG compared to non-EMS transport.
Why the study?
Does EMS transport reduce time to ED diagnosis and treatment in AMI patients receiving thrombolytic agents?
Population
87 acute myocardial infarction patients treated with thrombolytic agents at a 34,000-visit community…
Comparison
Emergency medical services transport vs Transported by other means (non-EMS)
Design
Case-control
Authors
Loading...
EMS transport may shorten AMI care delays; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective confirmation before practice change.
Case-Control (n=87)
No
Does EMS transport reduce time to ED diagnosis and treatment in AMI patients receiving thrombolytic agents?
Absolute Event Rate: 56% vs 78%
p-value: p=0.018
EMS transport of AMI patients significantly decreases time to diagnosis and thrombolytic treatment compared to non-EMS transport.
Swor et al. (1994) conducted a case-control in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n=87). Emergency medical services (EMS) transport vs. Transported by other means (non-EMS) was evaluated on Time to thrombolytic therapy (minutes) (p=0.018). EMS transport of AMI patients significantly decreased time to thrombolytic therapy (56.0 vs 78.0 min; p=0.018) and time to first ECG compared to non-EMS transport.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: