OBJECTIVE: To quantify the change in door to needle time when delivery of thrombolytic treatment of acute myocardial infarction was changed from the coronary care unit to the emergency department. DESIGN: A comparative observational study using prospectively collected data. SETTING: Coronary care unit and emergency department of an Australian teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 89 patients receiving thrombolysis in coronary care unit between June 1994 and January 1996, and 100 patients treated in the emergency department between April 1997 and May 1998. INTERVENTIONS: From April 1997, by agreement between cardiology and emergency medicine, all patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving thrombolysis were treated by emergency physicians in the emergency department. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Door to needle time measured from time of arrival at the hospital to start of thrombolysis. Other outcomes included pain to needle time and mortality. RESULTS: Median door to needle times were less for patients treated in the emergency department than in the coronary care unit (37 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 33 to 44 v 80 minutes, 95% CI 70 to 89, respectively; p < 0.0001). Door to needle time was under 60 minutes in 83% of emergency department patients and 26% of coronary care unit patients (57% difference, 95% CI 45% to 69%; p < 0.0001). Median pain to needle time was less for emergency department patients than for coronary care unit patients (161 minutes, 95% CI 142 to 177 v 195 minutes, 95% CI 180 to 209; p = 0.004); times of less than 90 minutes occurred in 18% of emergency department patients v 1% of coronary care unit patients (17% difference, 95% CI 9% to 25%; p < 0.05). Overall mortality was similar in patients treated in the emergency department and the coronary care unit. CONCLUSIONS: With a collaborative interdepartmental approach, thrombolytic treatment of acute myocardial infarction was more rapid in the emergency department, without compromising patient safety. This should improve the outcome in patients with infarcts treated with thrombolytic agents.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the change in door to needle time when delivery of thrombolytic treatment of acute myocardial infarction was changed from the coronary care unit to the emergency department. DESIGN: A comparative observational study using prospectively collected data. SETTING: Coronary care unit and emergency department of an Australian teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 89 patients receiving thrombolysis in coronary care unit between June 1994 and January 1996, and 100 patients treated in the emergency department between April 1997 and May 1998. INTERVENTIONS: From April 1997, by agreement between cardiology and emergency medicine, all patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving thrombolysis were treated by emergency physicians in the emergency department. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Door to needle time measured from time of arrival at the hospital to start of thrombolysis. Other outcomes included pain to needle time and mortality. RESULTS: Median door to needle times were less for patients treated in the emergency department than in the coronary care unit (37 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 33 to 44 v 80 minutes, 95% CI 70 to 89, respectively; p < 0.0001). Door to needle time was under 60 minutes in 83% of emergency department patients and 26% of coronary care unit patients (57% difference, 95% CI 45% to 69%; p < 0.0001). Median pain to needle time was less for emergency department patients than for coronary care unit patients (161 minutes, 95% CI 142 to 177 v 195 minutes, 95% CI 180 to 209; p = 0.004); times of less than 90 minutes occurred in 18% of emergency department patients v 1% of coronary care unit patients (17% difference, 95% CI 9% to 25%; p < 0.05). Overall mortality was similar in patients treated in the emergency department and the coronary care unit. CONCLUSIONS: With a collaborative interdepartmental approach, thrombolytic treatment of acute myocardial infarction was more rapid in the emergency department, without compromising patient safety. This should improve the outcome in patients with infarcts treated with thrombolytic agents.
Authors: S Gottlieb; U Goldbourt; V Boyko; G Barbash; L Mandelzweig; H Reicher-Reiss; S Stern; S Behar Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-01-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kelly A McDermott; Christian D Helfrich; Anne E Sales; John S Rumsfeld; P Michael Ho; Stephan D Fihn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Osama Mohammed; Firjith C Paramba; Naushad V Aboobaker; Riyadh A Mohammed; Nishan K Purayil; Haitham M Jassim; Mohammad K Shariff; Saud M Aslam; Farook F Muhsen; Khalid H Al Noor; Hani H Al Kilani Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 1.112