Bryant M, Kelly A M
Western Hospital, Footscray, Victoria.
Aust Health Rev. 2001;24(1):157-60. doi: 10.1071/ah010157.
The aim was to compare time to thrombolysis for patients treated via three treatment pathways: thrombolysis in the emergency department (ED), thrombolysis following direct admission by ambulance officers to coronary care (CCU) and thrombolysis after transfer from ED to CCU. We used a retrospective study of time to thrombolysis for all patients receiving thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at Western Hospital during 1999. The median time to thrombolysis in the ED group was 30 minutes (mean 40 minutes), compared with 60 minutes for the CCU group (mean 63 minutes) and 40 minutes (mean 43 minutes) for the direct CCU admission group. Eighty-five percent of patients treated in ED received thrombolysis in less than 60 minutes compared with 21% of those transferred from the ED for treatment in CCU and 52% of those directly admitted to CCU. We conclude that point of entry thrombolysis, be it in ED or in CCU after direct admission, gives shorter times to thrombolysis than processes that require transfer of patients between departments.
急诊科(ED)溶栓、救护人员直接将患者送入冠心病监护病房(CCU)后的溶栓以及从ED转至CCU后的溶栓。我们对1999年在西部医院接受急性心肌梗死(AMI)溶栓治疗的所有患者的溶栓时间进行了回顾性研究。ED组的中位溶栓时间为30分钟(平均40分钟),而CCU组为60分钟(平均63分钟),直接入住CCU组为40分钟(平均43分钟)。在ED接受治疗的患者中,85%在不到一小时内接受了溶栓治疗,相比之下,从ED转至CCU接受治疗的患者中这一比例为21%,直接入住CCU的患者中这一比例为52%。我们得出结论,无论是在ED还是直接入住CCU后进行的入院点溶栓,其溶栓时间都比需要在科室间转运患者的流程更短。