Key result
In a national audit of over 450 peripheral arterial thrombolysis events in Britain, only 13% of infusions utilized a pulse spray technique.
Observational (n=450)
Yes
While pulse spray lysis is faster than conventional low-dose techniques, its high equipment cost limits its use, leaving low-dose infusions as the gold standard in Britain.
May support faster lysis with pulse spray in select cases; leaves open whether expense warrants broader adoption.
technique, and outcome of peripheral thrombolysis for the past two years.2This is a continual process to provide a system for the national audit of peripheral arterial thrombolysis, and so far over 450 events of thrombolysis have been recorded.In these, only 13% of infusions were given with a pulse spray technique, in a median time of six hours (range 1-78 hours).Pulse spray lysis is certainly faster than conventional low dose techniques, but it requires expensive catheters and infusion systems.Other methods, such as high dose bolus thrombolysis and six hourly dose infusions, have also been reported to reduce infusion times without expensive equipment.34Personal communications with the manu- facturers of pulse spray infusion catheters also suggest that relatively few hospitals in Britain use the pulse spray technique.Little information is available on many of the techniques for peripheral thrombolysis, and low dose infusions remain the gold standard for many hospitals in Britain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J C Mucklow (1995) conducted an observational in Peripheral arterial thrombolysis (n=450). Pulse spray technique vs. Conventional low dose techniques was evaluated on Use of pulse spray technique. In a national audit of over 450 peripheral arterial thrombolysis events in Britain, only 13% of infusions utilized a pulse spray technique.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: