Holli A DeVon1, Mohamud R Daya2, Elizabeth Knight2, Mary-Lynn Brecht1, Erica Su3, Jessica Zègre-Hemsey4, Sahereh Mirzaei1, Stephanie Frisch5, Anne G Rosenfeld6. 1. From the University of California Los Angeles, School of Nursing, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Oregon Health and Science University, School of Medicine, Portland, OR. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 4. University of North Carolina, School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. University of Pittsburgh, School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. University of Arizona, College of Nursing, Tucson, AZ.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid reperfusion reduces infarct size and mortality for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but efficacy is time dependent. The aim of this study was to determine if transportation factors and clinical presentation predicted prehospital delay for suspected ACS, stratified by final diagnosis (ACS vs. no ACS). METHODS: A heterogeneous sample of emergency department (ED) patients with symptoms suggestive of ACS was enrolled at 5 US sites. Accelerated failure time models were used to specify a direct relationship between delay time and variables to predict prehospital delay by final diagnosis. RESULTS: Enrolled were 609 (62.5%) men and 366 (37.5%) women, predominantly white (69.1%), with a mean age of 60.32 (±14.07) years. Median delay time was 6.68 (confidence interval 1.91, 24.94) hours; only 26.2% had a prehospital delay of 2 hours or less. Patients presenting with unusual fatigue [time ratio (TR) = 1.71, P = 0.002; TR = 1.54, P = 0.003, respectively) or self-transporting to the ED experienced significantly longer prehospital delay (TR = 1.93, P < 0.001; TR = 1.71, P < 0.001, respectively). Predictors of shorter delay in patients with ACS were shoulder pain and lightheadedness (TR = 0.65, P = 0.013 and TR = 0.67, P = 0.022, respectively). Predictors of shorter delay for patients ruled out for ACS were chest pain and sweating (TR = 0.071, P = 0.025 and TR = 0.073, P = 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients self-transporting to the ED had prolonged prehospital delays. Encouraging the use of EMS is important for patients with possible ACS symptoms. Calling 911 can be positively framed to at-risk patients and the community as having advanced care come to them because EMS capabilities include 12-lead ECG acquisition and possibly high-sensitivity troponin assays.
BACKGROUND: Rapid reperfusion reduces infarct size and mortality for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but efficacy is time dependent. The aim of this study was to determine if transportation factors and clinical presentation predicted prehospital delay for suspected ACS, stratified by final diagnosis (ACS vs. no ACS). METHODS: A heterogeneous sample of emergency department (ED) patients with symptoms suggestive of ACS was enrolled at 5 US sites. Accelerated failure time models were used to specify a direct relationship between delay time and variables to predict prehospital delay by final diagnosis. RESULTS: Enrolled were 609 (62.5%) men and 366 (37.5%) women, predominantly white (69.1%), with a mean age of 60.32 (±14.07) years. Median delay time was 6.68 (confidence interval 1.91, 24.94) hours; only 26.2% had a prehospital delay of 2 hours or less. Patients presenting with unusual fatigue [time ratio (TR) = 1.71, P = 0.002; TR = 1.54, P = 0.003, respectively) or self-transporting to the ED experienced significantly longer prehospital delay (TR = 1.93, P < 0.001; TR = 1.71, P < 0.001, respectively). Predictors of shorter delay in patients with ACS were shoulder pain and lightheadedness (TR = 0.65, P = 0.013 and TR = 0.67, P = 0.022, respectively). Predictors of shorter delay for patients ruled out for ACS were chest pain and sweating (TR = 0.071, P = 0.025 and TR = 0.073, P = 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients self-transporting to the ED had prolonged prehospital delays. Encouraging the use of EMS is important for patients with possible ACS symptoms. Calling 911 can be positively framed to at-risk patients and the community as having advanced care come to them because EMS capabilities include 12-lead ECG acquisition and possibly high-sensitivity troponin assays.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Gac Sanit Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.139
Authors: Karim D Mahmoud; Ryan J Lennon; Henry H Ting; Charanjit S Rihal; David R Holmes Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Steen D Kristensen; Kristina G Laut; Jean Fajadet; Zuzana Kaifoszova; Petr Kala; Carlo Di Mario; William Wijns; Peter Clemmensen; Vaja Agladze; Loizos Antoniades; Khalid F Alhabib; Menko-Jan De Boer; Marc J Claeys; Dan Deleanu; Dariusz Dudek; Andrejs Erglis; Martine Gilard; Omer Goktekin; Giulio Guagliumi; Thorarinn Gudnason; Kim Wadt Hansen; Kurt Huber; Stefan James; Tomáš Janota; Siobhan Jennings; Olli Kajander; John Kanakakis; Kiril K Karamfiloff; Sasko Kedev; Ran Kornowski; Peter F Ludman; Béla Merkely; Davor Milicic; Ruslan Najafov; Francesca A Nicolini; Marko Noč; Miodrag Ostojic; Hélder Pereira; Dragana Radovanovic; Manel Sabaté; Mohamed Sobhy; Maxim Sokolov; Martin Studencan; Ibrahim Terzic; Steffen Wahler; Petr Widimsky Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 29.983