Trial reportJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2002
Feasibility and timing of prehospital administration of reteplase in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Trial report in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Comparison of urokinase and reteplase thrombolytic treatment in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- Simultaneous ring voice-over-Internet phone system enables rapid physician elicitation of explicit informed consent in prehospital stroke treatment trials.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn myocardial infarction patients undergoing thrombolysis, treatment delays negatively impact outcomes. This pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility and timing of field administration of intravenous double bolus reteplase in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
methodsSixty three patients with symptoms and EKG changes consistent with acute myocardial infarction of less than six hours duration received the first bolus of reteplase before arriving at the emergency department. A second bolus of reteplase was given in the emergency department. Subsequent resolution of ST-segment elevation was measured. Mean time from symptom onset to paramedic dispatch, and paramedic arrivals to first bolus of reteplase were measured. The mean time from the first bolus of reteplase to heparin bolus in an emergency department was also measured. All patients with evidence of ST-elevation and suspected acute myocardial infarction gave consent for the thrombolytic therapy. There were no refusals of therapy among those candidates eligible for thrombolysis.
resultsThe mean times from the first bolus of reteplase to heparin bolus in the emergency department was substantially longer than the in-field times. Resolution of ST-segment elevation was recorded in 52 of the 63 patients and the times of resolution ranged from five minutes after the first bolus dose to 190 minutes after the second bolus of reteplase. Resolution of ST-segment elevation and relief of pain occurred almost simultaneously.
conclusionsThese results demonstrated that in-field administration of thrombolytic therapy is a viable option to reduce the delay from symptom onset to initiation of thrombolysis. They demonstrated that satisfactory resolution of ST-segment elevation can be recorded in the field. The reduction in mortality observed in this study is comparable to previously published studies on inpatients.
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.