Trial reportIrish journal of medical science
Feasibility and long term outcome of home vs hospital initiated thrombolysis.
Trial report in Irish journal of medical science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThrombolytic therapy improves mortality in acute myocardial infarction especially in those who receive treatment early. Pre-hospital therapy can reduce the time to treatment.
methodsOpen, randomized study of patients with acute myocardial infarction of less than six hours duration in a rural community. Pre-hospital thrombolysis was administered using a mobile coronary care unit (MCCU) and all patients received IV streptokinase.
resultsTwo-hundred and forty-eight patients were studied, 82 in the MCCU and 166 in the hospital group. The mean delay time to treatment was 136 minutes (MCCU group) and 196 minutes (hospital group) (p < 0.001). Reperfusion time was 116 minutes for the MCCU group and 118 minutes for the hospital group. Mortality at 30 days was 4.9% for the MCCU group and 15.7% for the hospital group (p = 0.014). Mortality at one year was 9.8% for the MCCU group and 23.5% for the hospital group (p = 0.009). Mortality for patients followed up to five years was 17.7% for the MCCU group and 35.2% for the hospital group (p = 0.005). There were no significant adverse events in either treatment group.
conclusionPre-hospital thrombolysis by MCCU is feasible and allows significant reduction in the delay time to treatment initiation. There are encouraging improvements in short- and long-term survival with no apparent reduction in safety profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17312823What 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.