Suppr超能文献

急诊科与院外激活冠状动脉导管插入术团队之间的门球时间及假阳性激活情况比较。

A comparison of door-to-balloon times and false-positive activations between emergency department and out-of-hospital activation of the coronary catheterization team.

作者信息

Youngquist Scott T, Shah Atman P, Niemann James T, Kaji Amy H, French William J

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Aug;15(8):784-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00186.x. Epub 2008 Jul 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to compare the proportion of false-positive activations and intervention times between emergency department (ED) and field-based activation of the coronary catheterization laboratory (cath) team for emergency medical services (EMS) patients identified by out-of-hospital (OOH) 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected continuous quality improvement data at a single, urban, academic medical center. By protocol, weekday activation of the cath team occurred based on OOH notification of a computer-interpreted OOH ECG indicating potential STEMI. Night and weekend activation occurred at the discretion of the attending emergency physician (EP) after advanced ED notification and after patient arrival and assessment. Basic demographic information and cardiac risk factors were recorded, as well as door-to-balloon (DTB) and ultimate diagnosis.

RESULTS

From May 2007 through March 2008, there were 23 field activations and 33 ED activations. There was no difference in demographic or clinical characteristics between the two groups. In the field activation group, 9/23 (39%) were false-positives, while 3/33 (9%) were false-positives in the ED activation group (30% higher absolute difference in the field activation group, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8% to 52%, p = 0.02). OOH times and time spent in the ED were similar between the two groups. DTB times were 77 minutes for field activation and 68 minutes for ED activation, respectively (difference 9 minutes, 95% CI = -9 to 27).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency physician activation of the cath team results in a lower proportion of false-positive activations without clearly sacrificing DTB time when compared to field activation based solely on the results of the OOH ECG.

摘要

目的

比较急诊科(ED)激活与基于现场激活冠状动脉导管插入实验室(导管室)团队对院外(OOH)12导联心电图(ECG)诊断为ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的紧急医疗服务(EMS)患者的假阳性激活比例和干预时间。

方法

这是一项对前瞻性收集的单一城市学术医疗中心持续质量改进数据的回顾性研究。按照方案,在工作日,导管室团队根据计算机解读的OOH ECG提示潜在STEMI的OOH通知进行激活。夜间和周末的激活由主治急诊医师(EP)在ED提前通知后以及患者到达并评估后自行决定。记录基本人口统计学信息和心脏危险因素,以及门球时间(DTB)和最终诊断。

结果

从2007年5月到2008年3月,有23次现场激活和33次ED激活。两组在人口统计学或临床特征方面没有差异。在现场激活组中,9/23(39%)为假阳性,而在ED激活组中为3/33(9%)(现场激活组的绝对差异高30%,95%置信区间[CI]=8%至52%,p=0.02)。两组的OOH时间和在ED花费的时间相似。现场激活的DTB时间分别为77分钟,ED激活为68分钟(差异9分钟,95%CI=-9至27)。

结论

与仅基于OOH ECG结果的现场激活相比,急诊医师激活导管室团队导致假阳性激活比例更低,且未明显牺牲DTB时间。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验