Starting thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction in Accident and Emergency Department: from implementation to evaluation

( views:56, downloads:0 )
Wai-Kwong Chan()
Koon-Ngai Lam()
Fei-Lung Lau()
Ho-Ming Tang()
Journal Title:
Volume 111, Issue 04, 1998
Key Word:

Abstract´╝Ü Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of initiating thrombolysis for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Accident and Emergency Department. Methods From January 1993 to December 1995, all AMI patients who were admitted to the United Christian Hospital and given thrombolytic therapy were studied. The patients' demographic data, time and mode of presentation, site of myocardial infarction, treatment modality and timing, and complications related to AMI or treatment were recorded prospectively in our AMI database. The frequency of thrombolysis administered in Accident and Emergency Department and Coronary Care Unit, as well as the median door-to-needle time (time interval between hospital arrival to initiation of thrombolytic therapy) were compared. Cases of inappropriate thrombolysis and complication were also analyzed.Results Over these 3 years, 257 patients received thrombolysis in the United Christian Hospital. The percentage of patients receiving thrombolysis in Accident and Emergency Department increased from 3.2% in 1993 to 12.3% in 1994, and to 39.4% in 1995. The median time interval between arrival to hospital and thrombolysis (door-to-needle time) was 25 minutes, compared with 81 minutes in the Coronary Care Unit. The door-to-needle time also improved over these 3 years: from 95 minutes in 1993 to 75 minutes in 1995 in Coronary Care Unit group, and from 35 minutes in 1993 to 20 minutes in 1995 in the Accident and Emergency Department group. Over these 3 years, 2 cases of inappropriate thrombolysis were reported but these did not result in any mortality. Four complications from thrombolytic therapy were reported, and these were managed appropriately by the staff in Accident and Emergency Department and did not result in mortality. Conclusions Starting thrombolytic therapy in Accident and Emergency Department is safe and effectively decreases the door-to-needle time.

  • [1]Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thromboyltic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986; 1:397.
  • [2]National Heart Attack Alert Program Coordinating Committee, 60 Minutes to Treatment Working Group. Emergency Department: rapid indentification and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 23:311.
  • [3]More R, Moore K. Delay times in the administration of the thrombolytic therapy: the Brighton experience. Int J Cardiol 1995; 49 (Suppl):S39.
  • [4]Verheugt FW, Funke K. Emergency room infusion of intravenous streptokinese in acute myocardial infarction: feasibility, safety and haemodynamic consequence. Ann Heart J 1989; 117:1018.
  • [5]Pell ACH, Miller HC. Effect of "fast track" admission for acute myocardial infusion on delay to thrombolysis. BMJ 1992; 304:83.
  • [6]MacCallum AG, Stafford PJ. Reduction in hospital time to thrombolytic therapy by audit of policy guildlines. Eur Heart J 1990; 11(Suppl F):48.
  • [7]Chan WK, Chiu CS, Yue CS, et al. Can the door-to-needle of giving thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction patients be shortened? (abstract). J HK Coll Cardiol 1994; 2(1):62.
  • [8]Craeme Porter. Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: reducing in-hospital treatment delay. N Zealand Med J 1995; 28:253.
  • [9]Bristish heart foundation group Guildlines for the early management of patient with myocardial infarction. BMJ 1994; 308:767.
  • [10]Recommandations for ensursing early thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Can Med Assoc 1996; 154(4):483.
  • [11]Maynard C, Weaver WD. Factor influencing the time to administration of thrombolytic therapy with RTPA. Am J Cardiol 1995; 76:548.
  • [12]ISIS Collaboration group. Randomised trial of intravenous Streptokinease, oral aspirin both or neither among 17187 cases of supected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1988; ii:349.
  • [13]Chan WK, Chiu A, Yue CS. Prevalence of various complications of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: experience in a local regional hospital. J HK Coll Cardiol 1996; 4(2):77.
  • [14]Zoltie N. Changing standards for thrombolysis in accident and emergency department. J AE Med 1995; 12:132.
  • [15]Rustige JM, Burczyk U. Effect of a media campaign on delay times in suspected acute myocardial infarction - the Ludwigshafen project. Eur Heart J 1990; 11(Suppl):171.
  • [16]Weaver WD, Cerqueirra M. Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. JAMA 1993; 270:1211.
  • [17]The European Myocardial Infarction Project Group. Prehospital thrombolytic therapy in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:383.
WanfangData CO.,Ltd All Rights Reserved
About WanfangData | Contact US
Healthcare Department, Fuxing Road NO.15, Haidian District Beijing, 100038 P.R.China
Tel:+86-010-58882616 Fax:+86-010-58882615