Literature DB >> 18029518

Is there still a place for emergency department thrombolysis following the introduction of the amended Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee criteria for thrombolysis?

N R Castle1, R C Owen, M Hann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To apply the current (2004) and the amended (2006) Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee (JRCALC) criteria for paramedic initiated thrombolysis to all patients who received thrombolytic treatment in an emergency department (ED) to determine if the amendments increase the proportion suitable for paramedic initiated thrombolysis.
DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive analysis.
METHOD: The ED clinical notes, ambulance clinical record and the first recorded ECG (ED or ambulance) of all patients thrombolysed in the ED during a 12 month period were reviewed against the previous JRCALC guidelines (2004) and the amended JRCALC guidelines (2006) for thrombolysis.
RESULTS: Using the JRCALC guidelines (2004), 26 of the 147 patients (17.7%) were eligible for paramedic initiated thrombolysis. Using the JRCALC guidelines (2006), this increased to 41 (27.9%). This difference was statistically significant (McNemar's I2 test with 1 degree of freedom = 15.00; p<0.001). The change to the blood pressure, age and pulse rate parameters has increased the percentage eligible for paramedic initiated thrombolysis by 10.2% (95% confidence interval 4.6% to 15.8%).
CONCLUSION: The amended JRCALC guidelines (2006) for paramedic initiated thrombolysis have successfully increased the proportion of patients suitable for prehospital thrombolysis by approximately 10%, although the ED retains an important role in the provision of prompt thrombolytic treatment for a proportion of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18029518      PMCID: PMC2658358          DOI: 10.1136/emj.2007.049031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  8 in total

1.  Impact of time to treatment on mortality after prehospital fibrinolysis or primary angioplasty: data from the CAPTIM randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Philippe Gabriel Steg; Eric Bonnefoy; Sylvie Chabaud; Frédéric Lapostolle; Pierre-Yves Dubien; Pascal Cristofini; Alain Leizorovicz; Paul Touboul
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2003-11-17       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Improving care for patients with acute coronary syndromes: initial results from the National Audit of Myocardial Infarction Project (MINAP).

Authors:  J S Birkhead; L Walker; M Pearson; C Weston; A D Cunningham; A F Rickards
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 5. Initial management of acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Hans-Richard Arntz; Leo Bossaert; Gerasimos S Filippatos
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.262

4.  A comparison of pharmacologic therapy with/without timely coronary intervention vs. primary percutaneous intervention early after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the WEST (Which Early ST-elevation myocardial infarction Therapy) study.

Authors:  Paul W Armstrong
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 29.983

5.  What percentages of patients are suitable for prehospital thrombolysis?

Authors:  N Castle; R Owen; R Vincent; N Ineson
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.740

6.  Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project--phase I: patient characteristics and feasibility of prehospital initiation of thrombolytic therapy.

Authors:  W D Weaver; M S Eisenberg; J S Martin; P E Litwin; S M Shaeffer; M T Ho; P Kudenchuk; A P Hallstrom; M D Cerqueira; M K Copass
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour.

Authors:  E Boersma; A C Maas; J W Deckers; M L Simoons
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-09-21       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial--PRAGUE-2.

Authors:  P Widimský; T Budesínský; D Vorác; L Groch; M Zelízko; M Aschermann; M Branny; J St'ásek; P Formánek
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 29.983

  8 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Michael McCaul; Andrit Lourens; Tamara Kredo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-09-10

2.  Barriers to the implementation of prehospital thrombolysis in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in South Africa: An exploratory inquiry.

Authors:  Andrew Lynch; Simpiwe Sobuwa; Nicholas Castle
Journal:  Afr J Emerg Med       Date:  2020-09-03

3.  Paramedics beliefs and attitudes towards pre-hospital thrombolysis.

Authors:  Abdullah Foraih Alanazi; Qais Saad Alrashidi; Nawfal Abdullah Aljerian
Journal:  Int J Appl Basic Med Res       Date:  2014-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.