ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2022
Association between prehospital recognition of acute myocardial infarction and length of stay in the emergency department.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the association between prehospital recognition of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and length of stay (LOS) in the emergency department (ED) of emergency medical service (EMS)-transported AMI patients.
methodsA multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted using prehospital and hospital data from three tertiary emergency departments. Patients diagnosed with AMI between January 2015 and December 2018 were enrolled. Study groups were categorized according to prehospital recognition and prehospital 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) into three groups based on an EMS cardiovascular registry: group A, no prehospital recognition (reference group); group B, prehospital recognition without 12-lead ECG; and group C, prehospital recognition with 12-lead ECG. The primary outcome was an ED LOS of less than 4 hours.
resultsAmong 1,237 study participants, 722 (58.4%) were in group A, 325 (26.3%) were in group B, and 190 (15.4%) were in group C. Multivariable logistic regression showed that groups B and C had a higher likelihood of a short ED LOS (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: group B, 1.64 [1.21-2.22] and group C, 1.88 [1.30-2.71]) than group A. There was no significant difference in ED LOS according to whether prehospital 12-lead ECG was conducted.
conclusionPrehospital recognition of AMI by EMS personnel, with or without 12-lead ECG, was associated with a short ED LOS.
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.