Key result
Emergency physician-initiated thrombolysis fails to improve door-to-needle times in STEMI vs on-call medical teams.
Why the study?
Achieving target door-needle times for STEMI remains challenging and data on ED doctor-led thrombolysis and delay factors in developing countries are limited.
Does emergency physician-initiated thrombolysis reduce door-to-needle time in STEMI patients compared to medical on-call team-led thrombolysis?
Observational (n=297)
No
Does emergency physician-initiated thrombolysis reduce door-to-needle time in STEMI patients compared to medical on-call team-led thrombolysis?
Transferring responsibility for STEMI thrombolysis to emergency physicians did not significantly improve door-to-needle times, with delays primarily driven by incorrect ECG interpretation, inappropriate triage, and multiple referrals.
INTRODUCTION: Achieving target door-needle times for ST elevation myocardial infarction remains challenging. Data on emergency department (ED) doctor-led thrombolysis in developing countries and factors causing delay are limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on door-needle times by transferring responsibility for thrombolysis to the ED doctors and to identify predictors of prolonged door-needle times. METHODOLOGY: Data on medical on-call team-led thrombolysis at a tertiary Asian hospital were prospectively collected from May 2007 to Aug 2008 (1st study period). In September 2008, ED doctors were empowered to perform thrombolysis. The practice change was accompanied by new guidelines, tick chart implementation, and training sessions. Data were then consecutively collected from September 2008 to May 2009 (2nd study period). Door-to-needle times for the 1st and 2nd study periods were compared. All cases were analysed for factors of delay by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: 297 patients were thrombolysed, 169 by the medical on-call team during the 1st study period and 128 by the ED doctors during the 2nd study period. Median door-needle times were 54 and 48 min, respectively (p=0.76). Significant delays were predicted by 'incorrect initial ECG interpretation' (adjusted OR (aOR) 14.3), 'inappropriate triage' (aOR 10.4) and 'multiple referrals' (aOR 5.9). No cases of inappropriate thrombolysis were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer of responsibility for thrombolysis to the ED doctors did not improve door-needle times despite measures introduced to facilitate this change. Key causative factors for this failure were identified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loch et al. (2013) conducted an observational in ST elevation myocardial infarction (n=297). Emergency physician-initiated thrombolysis vs. Medical on-call team-led thrombolysis was evaluated on Median door-to-needle time (minutes) (p=0.76). Emergency physician-initiated thrombolysis did not significantly improve median door-to-needle times for STEMI compared to medical on-call team-led thrombolysis (48 vs 54 min; p=0.76).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: