ArticleCureus2024
A Pilot Rapid Triage Process for Prehospital ST-Segment Myocardial Infarction Patients Direct to the Catheterization Lab.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Impact of Wechat-based prehospital data transmission on reperfusion times in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a prospective observational study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Rapid treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly reduces morbidity and mortality rates. Recent studies emphasize the importance of reducing total ischemic time, making first-medical-contact-to-balloon (FMCTB) time a key performance indicator. To improve FMCTB times in patients brought to the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS), we implemented a "Direct to Lab" (DTL) workflow during the following conditions: weekday daytime hours, when the lab is fully staffed, and for hemodynamically stable STEMI patients presenting via EMS. Methods We performed a pre/post analysis following the implementation of a pilot workflow for EMS STEMI patients to be rapidly triaged to the cardiac catheterization lab as compared to those patients who underwent the standard workflow before program implementation at a 225-bed community hospital in a suburban setting in Maryland, USA. The hospital's STEMI database was queried from 2/1/2021 through 3/1/2024, including all EMS STEMI alert activations during the study period. Cases were excluded if the patient arrived after program operating hours, declined PCI, or if clinical circumstances (such as cardiac arrest or the need for other resuscitative or diagnostic interventions) necessitated additional ED stabilization before PCI. Results A total of 30 patients met the inclusion criteria. The analysis revealed significantly reduced ED, door-to-balloon (DTB), and FMCTB times for patients under the "Direct to Lab" workflow, including a total ED time of 8.4 minutes faster, an average DTB time of 19.6 minutes faster, and an average FMCTB time of 24.3 minutes faster than those triaged via the standard workflow. Complication rates were similar among both groups. The most common reason that stable patients were not taken directly to the lab was the need for further clinical evaluation before cardiac catheterization or the lab not being immediately available. Conclusion In this pilot single-center analysis, STEMI patients who were expeditiously triaged "Direct to Lab" experienced significantly lower total ED, DTB, and FMCTB times with no difference in procedural complications. This study highlights the patient-centered benefits of a robust collaboration between EMS, ED, and Interventional Cardiology teams.
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.