ArticleJournal of accident & emergency medicine1999
Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: the safety and efficiency of treatment in the accident and emergency department.
Article in Journal of accident & emergency medicine, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effective Factors in Door-to-Needle Time for Streptokinase Administration in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Admitted to the Emergency Department.Trauma monthly · 2016Article
- A review of interventions and system changes to improve time to reperfusion for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Review
- Emergency department thrombolysis improves door to needle times.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2004Article
- Potential impact of interventions to reduce times to thrombolysis.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2004Article
- Nurse initiated thrombolysis in the accident and emergency department: safe, accurate, and faster than fast track.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2003Article
- Emergency nurse practitioners: a three part study in clinical and cost effectiveness.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2003Article
- Prehospital thrombolysis: lessons from Sweden and their application to the United Kingdom.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2002Article
- The Sheffield experiment: the effects of centralising accident and emergency services in a large urban setting.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the safety and efficiency with which the accident and emergency (A&E) department provides thrombolytic treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
methodsA prospective observational study based in a teaching hospital for one year. All patients who presented with the clinical and electrocardiographic indications for thrombolytic treatment were studied. Patients were grouped according to route of admission. After logarithmic transformation, the "door to needle times" of the groups were compared using a two tailed Student's t test. Arrhythmias and complications after thrombolytic treatment were noted. The appropriateness of the treatment was assessed retrospectively by review of the clinical records and electrocardiograms, judged against locally agreed eligibility criteria.
resultsData from 153 patients were analysed; 138/153 (90%) patients were admitted via the A&E department. The shortest door to needle times were seen in those patients thrombolysed by A&E staff within the A&E department (mean 43.8 minutes). The transfer of A&E patients to the coronary care unit (CCU) was associated with a significant increase in the door to needle time (mean 58.8 minutes, p = 0.004). Only one malignant arrhythmia occurred during the administration of thrombolysis in the A&E department, and this was managed effectively. No arrhythmias occurred during transfer of thrombolysed patients to the CCU. In every case, the decision to administer thrombolysis was retrospectively judged to have been appropriate.
conclusionsThe A&E department provides appropriate, safe, and timely thrombolytic treatment for patients with AMI. Transferring A&E patients to the CCU before thrombolysis is associated with an unnecessary treatment delay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.