Literature DB >> 18638030

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

Scott T Youngquist1, Atman P Shah, James T Niemann, Amy H Kaji, William J French.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18638030     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00186.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  9 in total

1.  Cellular technology improves transmission success of pre-hospital electrocardiograms.

Authors:  Nicholas Larochelle; Michael O'Keefe; Daniel Wolfson; Kalev Freeman
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 2.469

2.  The efficacy and value of emergency medicine: a supportive literature review.

Authors:  C James Holliman; Terrence M Mulligan; Robert E Suter; Peter Cameron; Lee Wallis; Philip D Anderson; Kathleen Clem
Journal:  Int J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-07-22

3.  Using EMS Dispatch to Trigger STEMI Alerts Decreases Door-to-Balloon Times.

Authors:  Justin C Stowens; Seema S Sonnad; Robert A Rosenbaum
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-04-21

4.  Late Outcomes of Patients With Prehospital ST-Segment Elevation and Appropriate Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Nonactivation.

Authors:  Amir Faour; Reece Pahn; Callum Cherrett; Oliver Gibbs; Karen Lintern; Christian J Mussap; Rohan Rajaratnam; Dominic Y Leung; David A Taylor; Steven C Faddy; Sidney Lo; Craig P Juergens; John K French
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 6.106

Review 5.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy to Identify ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction on Interpretations of Prehospital Electrocardiograms.

Authors:  Akihito Tanaka; Kunihiro Matsuo; Migaku Kikuchi; Sunao Kojima; Hiroyuki Hanada; Toshiaki Mano; Takahiro Nakashima; Katsutaka Hashiba; Takeshi Yamamoto; Junichi Yamaguchi; Naoki Nakayama; Osamu Nomura; Tetsuya Matoba; Yoshio Tahara; Hiroshi Nonogi
Journal:  Circ Rep       Date:  2022-05-25

6.  Utility of prehospital electrocardiogram interpretation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction utilizing computer interpretation and transmission for interventional cardiologist consultation.

Authors:  Amir Faour; Callum Cherrett; Oliver Gibbs; Karen Lintern; Christian J Mussap; Rohan Rajaratnam; Dominic Y Leung; David A Taylor; Steve C Faddy; Sidney Lo; Craig P Juergens; John K French
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 2.585

7.  Physician accuracy in interpreting potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction electrocardiograms.

Authors:  James M McCabe; Ehrin J Armstrong; Ivy Ku; Ameya Kulkarni; Kurt S Hoffmayer; Prashant D Bhave; Stephen W Waldo; Priscilla Hsue; John C Stein; Gregory M Marcus; Scott Kinlay; Peter Ganz
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 5.501

8.  Improving Electrocardiography Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Medical Services Personnel.

Authors:  Ashlay A Huitema; Mistre Alemayehu; Orna L Steiner; Rodrigo Bagur; Shahar Lavi
Journal:  CJC Open       Date:  2019-01-23

9.  Likelihood of myocardial infarction, revascularization and death following catheterization laboratory activation in patients with vs. without both chest pain and ST elevation.

Authors:  Peter Puleo; Philip Salen; Yugandhar Manda; Huseng Vefali; Sahil Agrawal; Abdullah Quddus; Kevin Branch; Melinda Shoemaker; Jill Stoltzfus
Journal:  Coron Artery Dis       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 1.717

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.