Key result
An aggressive policy to reduce door-to-needle time decreased mean time from 61 to 19 minutes (p=0.0004) and increased treatment of eligible patients, but increased inappropriate thrombolysis.
Why the study?
Does an aggressive policy to reduce door-to-needle time improve the speed and accuracy of thrombolysis administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Population
Patients admitted to the cardiac care unit with acute myocardial infarction, or who were thrombolysed…
Comparison
Aggressive policy to reduce the delay between… vs Management before implementation of the…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Caution advised before adopting aggressive policies; leaves open net benefit of faster thrombolysis in routine AMI care.
Cohort
Does an aggressive policy to reduce door-to-needle time improve the speed and accuracy of thrombolysis administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 19% vs 61%
p-value: p=0.0004
An aggressive policy to reduce door-to-needle time significantly decreased treatment delays and increased the proportion of eligible patients receiving thrombolysis, but may increase the risk of inappropriate administration.
James Learmonth (1953) conducted a cohort in acute myocardial infarction. Aggressive policy to reduce door-to-needle time vs. Standard care (pre-policy period) was evaluated on mean door-to-needle time in minutes (p=0.0004). An aggressive policy to reduce door-to-needle time decreased mean time from 61 to 19 minutes (p=0.0004) and increased treatment of eligible patients, but increased inappropriate thrombolysis.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: