Key result
Mobile coronary care unit thrombolysis is linked to ~60 minutes faster treatment versus the ED.
Why the study?
Time delays to fibrinolytic treatment and their impact on outcome in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction in an area with access to a mobile coronary care unit were assessed.
Does initiation of thrombolytic therapy by mobile coronary care unit staff reduce time delays to treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Population
100 consecutive patients with suggestive symptoms and ECG changes of acute myocardial infarction admitted to coronary care unit
Comparison
Thrombolytic therapy initiated by mobile coronary care unit staff out-of-hospital vs in Accident and Emergency Department
Design
Observational cohort study
Follow-up
In-hospital
Authors
Loading...
May support mobile-unit thrombolysis to shorten AMI treatment delays; leaves open outcome benefits pending randomized trials.
Observational (n=100)
No
Does initiation of thrombolytic therapy by mobile coronary care unit staff reduce time delays to treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 127% vs 187%
p-value: p=0.005
Initiation of thrombolytic therapy by mobile coronary care unit staff significantly reduces the time delay to treatment compared to hospital-based initiation in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Roberts et al. (1994) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=100). Thrombolytic therapy initiated by mobile coronary care unit staff vs. Thrombolytic therapy initiated in the Accident and Emergency Department was evaluated on Time from symptom onset to the initiation of thrombolytic therapy (p=0.005). Thrombolytic therapy initiated by mobile coronary care unit staff significantly reduced the mean time from symptom onset to treatment compared to the emergency department (127 vs 187 minutes; P=0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: