Pedley David K, Bissett Kim, Connolly Elizabeth M, Goodman Carol G, Golding Ian, Pringle T H, McNeill G P, Pringle S D, Jones M C
Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY.
BMJ. 2003 Jul 5;327(7405):22-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7405.22.
To evaluate a system of prehospital thrombolysis, delivered by paramedics, in meeting the national service framework's targets for the management of acute myocardial infarction.
Prospective observational cohort study comparing patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction considered for thrombolysis in the prehospital environment with patients treated in hospital.
The catchment area of a large teaching hospital, including urban and rural areas.
201 patients presenting concurrently over a 12 month period who had changes to the electrocardiogram that were diagnostic of acute myocardial infarction or who received thrombolysis for suspected acute myocardial infarction.
Time from first medical contact to initiation of thrombolysis (call to needle time), number of patients given thrombolysis appropriately, and all cause mortality in hospital.
The median call to needle time for patients treated before arriving in hospital (n=28) was 52 (95% confidence interval 41 to 62) minutes. Patients from similar rural areas who were treated in hospital (n=43) had a median time of 125 (104 to 140) minutes. This represents a median time saved of 73 minutes (P < 0.001). Sixty minutes after medical contact 64% of patients (18/28) treated before arrival in hospital had received thrombolysis; this compares with 4% of patients (2/43) in a cohort from similar areas. Median call to needle time for patients from urban areas (n=107) was 80 (78 to 93) minutes. Myocardial infarction was confirmed in 89% of patients (25/28) who had received prehospital thrombolysis; this compares with 92% (138/150) in the two groups of patients receiving thrombolysis in hospital.
Thrombolysis delivered by paramedics with support from the base hospital can meet the national targets for early thrombolysis. The system has been shown to work well and can be introduced without delay.
评估由护理人员实施的院前溶栓系统,以确定其是否符合国家服务框架中急性心肌梗死管理的目标。
前瞻性观察队列研究,比较在院前环境中考虑进行溶栓治疗的疑似急性心肌梗死患者与在医院接受治疗的患者。
一家大型教学医院的服务区域,包括城市和农村地区。
在12个月期间同时就诊的201例患者,其心电图有诊断急性心肌梗死的变化,或因疑似急性心肌梗死接受了溶栓治疗。
从首次医疗接触到开始溶栓的时间(呼叫至穿刺时间)、接受适当溶栓治疗的患者数量以及医院内的全因死亡率。
入院前接受治疗的患者(n = 28)的呼叫至穿刺时间中位数为52分钟(95%置信区间41至62分钟)。来自类似农村地区且在医院接受治疗的患者(n = 43)的时间中位数为125分钟(104至140分钟)。这意味着中位数时间节省了73分钟(P < 0.001)。医疗接触60分钟后,入院前接受治疗的患者中有64%(18/28)接受了溶栓治疗;相比之下,来自类似地区队列中的患者只有4%(2/43)接受了溶栓治疗。城市地区患者(n = 107)的呼叫至穿刺时间中位数为80分钟(78至93分钟)。接受院前溶栓治疗的患者中有89%(25/28)确诊为心肌梗死;相比之下,在医院接受溶栓治疗的两组患者中这一比例为92%(138/150)。
在基地医院的支持下,由护理人员实施的溶栓治疗能够达到国家早期溶栓的目标。该系统已被证明运行良好,可以立即推广。