Why the study?
Does rapid mobilization and early discharge improve or maintain safety in selected low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to conventional mobilization?
Does rapid mobilization and early discharge improve or maintain safety in selected low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to conventional mobilization?
Early mobilization and discharge is safe and feasible in a selected group of low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Rapid mobilization associated with lower mortality in low-risk AMI; leaves open whether early discharge is safe without randomized confirmation.
Consecutive patients (n=184) surviving 48 hours in a coronary care unit were divided into one rapidly (RM) (n=55, 30%) and one conventionally mobilized (CM) group (n=129, 70%). The selection of RM patients was based on the absence of five early risk indicators (RI), reflecting electrical and mechanical heart dysfunction. During after-care, five late RIs were evaluated, including a submaximal bicycle exercise test to 50 W, which excluded nine (16%) additional patients from the RM group. After excluding four patients for non-cardiac reasons, the remaining 42 RM patients were rapidly mobilized and discharged after a mean of nine days, in contrast to a mean of 19 days in the CM group, comprising 121 patients. No RM patient dies in hospital and only one patient died during a six-month follow-up, compared to 17 (p less than 0.01) and 28 (p less than 0.01) patients respectively, in the CM group. Both reinfarction and mortality increased with the number of positive RIs. The early exercise test excluded four patients from the RM group. Altogether 22 of 45 patients showed some abnormality during exercise. Half of these 22 patients were readmitted due to cardiac complications during the follow-up period. These findings indicate that it is possible to identify a group of patients with AMI suitable for early discharge, and that an early exercise test in selected good risk patients is safe and identifies a group prone to complications during the early follow-up period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lindvall et al. (1979) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: