Why the study?
What are the options for prehospital evaluation and treatment of presumed acute coronary syndrome?
What are the options for prehospital evaluation and treatment of presumed acute coronary syndrome?
Prehospital ECG and fibrinolytic therapy are well-documented for early ACS management, but further studies are needed to establish the cost-benefit and safety of other common prehospital interventions.
Fibrinolytics remain preferred for prehospital ACS; leaves open value of other interventions pending further trials.
The earlier infarct-limiting therapy is started the better is the outcome among patients suffering from a threatened myocardial infarction. The introduction of a prehospital electrocardiogram has improved triage of patients with acute chest pain. With regard to medication, fibrinolytic agents have the best documentation. Their use when frequently followed by a percutaneous coronary intervention at a later stage may be a good alternative among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Other treatments of potential value in the prehospital setting are oxygen, narcotic analgesics, nitrates, aspirin, heparin, low molecular weight heparin, glycoprotein IIB, IIIA blockers, clopidogrel and beta-blockers. We need further studies, however, for most of these treatments including cost-benefit analysis, analysis of various logistic aspects and safety in order to confirm their value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herlitz et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: