BACKGROUND: Delay from onset of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) symptoms to hospital admission continues to be prolonged. To date, community education campaigns on the topic have had disappointing results. Therefore, we conducted a clinical randomized trial to test whether an intervention tailored specifically for patients with ACS and delivered one-on-one would reduce prehospital delay time. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants (n=3522) with documented coronary heart disease were randomized to experimental (n=1777) or control (n=1745) groups. Experimental patients received education and counseling about ACS symptoms and actions required. Patients had a mean age of 67+/-11 years, and 68% were male. Over the 2 years of follow-up, 565 patients (16.0%) were admitted to an emergency department with ACS symptoms a total of 842 times. Neither median prehospital delay time (experimental, 2.20 versus control, 2.25 hours) nor emergency medical system use (experimental, 63.6% versus control, 66.9%) was different between groups, although experimental patients were more likely than control to call the emergency medical system if the symptoms occurred within the first 6 months following the intervention (P=0.036). Experimental patients were significantly more likely to take aspirin after symptom onset than control patients (experimental, 22.3% versus control, 10.1%, P=0.02). The intervention did not result in an increase in emergency department use (experimental, 14.6% versus control, 17.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The education and counseling intervention did not lead to reduced prehospital delay or increased ambulance use. Reducing the time from onset of ACS symptoms to arrival at the hospital continues to be a significant public health challenge. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier NCT00734760.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Delay from onset of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) symptoms to hospital admission continues to be prolonged. To date, community education campaigns on the topic have had disappointing results. Therefore, we conducted a clinical randomized trial to test whether an intervention tailored specifically for patients with ACS and delivered one-on-one would reduce prehospital delay time. METHODS AND RESULTS:Participants (n=3522) with documented coronary heart disease were randomized to experimental (n=1777) or control (n=1745) groups. Experimental patients received education and counseling about ACS symptoms and actions required. Patients had a mean age of 67+/-11 years, and 68% were male. Over the 2 years of follow-up, 565 patients (16.0%) were admitted to an emergency department with ACS symptoms a total of 842 times. Neither median prehospital delay time (experimental, 2.20 versus control, 2.25 hours) nor emergency medical system use (experimental, 63.6% versus control, 66.9%) was different between groups, although experimental patients were more likely than control to call the emergency medical system if the symptoms occurred within the first 6 months following the intervention (P=0.036). Experimental patients were significantly more likely to take aspirin after symptom onset than control patients (experimental, 22.3% versus control, 10.1%, P=0.02). The intervention did not result in an increase in emergency department use (experimental, 14.6% versus control, 17.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The education and counseling intervention did not lead to reduced prehospital delay or increased ambulance use. Reducing the time from onset of ACS symptoms to arrival at the hospital continues to be a significant public health challenge. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier NCT00734760.
Authors: R Zahn; R Schiele; A K Gitt; S Schneider; K Seidl; T Voigtländer; M Gottwik; E Altmann; U Gieseler; W Rosahl; S Wagner; J Senges Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Robert J Goldberg; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Immad Sadiq; Christopher B Granger; Elizabeth A Jackson; Andrzej Budaj; David Brieger; Alvaro Avezum; Shaun Goodman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: John G Canto; Robert J Zalenski; Joseph P Ornato; William J Rogers; Catarina I Kiefe; David Magid; Michael G Shlipak; Paul D Frederick; Costas G Lambrew; Katherine A Littrell; Hal V Barron Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-12-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R V Luepker; J M Raczynski; S Osganian; R J Goldberg; J R Finnegan; J R Hedges; D C Goff; M S Eisenberg; J G Zapka; H A Feldman; D R Labarthe; P G McGovern; C E Cornell; M A Proschan; D G Simons-Morton Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kathleen Dracup; Sharon McKinley; Lynn V Doering; Barbara Riegel; Hendrika Meischke; Debra K Moser; Michele Pelter; Beverly Carlson; Leanne Aitken; Andrea Marshall; Rebecca Cross; Steven M Paul Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-05-26
Authors: Barbara Riegel; Alexandra L Hanlon; Sharon McKinley; Debra K Moser; Hendrika Meischke; Lynn V Doering; Patricia Davidson; Michele M Pelter; Kathleen Dracup Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Kim G Smolderen; John A Spertus; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz; Fengming Tang; Joseph S Ross; Henry H Ting; Karen P Alexander; Saif S Rathore; Paul S Chan Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jean C McSweeney; Anne G Rosenfeld; Willie M Abel; Lynne T Braun; Lora E Burke; Stacie L Daugherty; Gerald F Fletcher; Martha Gulati; Laxmi S Mehta; Christina Pettey; Jane F Reckelhoff Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Leslie L Davis; Thomas P McCoy; Barbara Riegel; Sharon McKinley; Lynn V Doering; Kathleen Dracup; Debra K Moser Journal: Dimens Crit Care Nurs Date: 2016 Nov/Dec
Authors: Clare L Atzema; Peter C Austin; Thao Huynh; Ansar Hassan; Maria Chiu; Julie T Wang; Jack V Tu Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jonathan D Newman; Karina W Davidson; Siqin Ye; Jonathan A Shaffer; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 2.778