Quality improvement report: Safety and efficacy of nurse initiated thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction

ProblemDelay in starting thrombolytic treatment in patients arriving at hospital with chest pain who are diagnosed as having acute myocardial infarction.DesignAudit of “door to needle times” for patients presenting with chest pain and an electrocardiogram on admission that confirmed acute myocardial infarction. A one year period in each of three phases of development was studied.

Background and setting

The goal of the national service framework for coronary heart disease is that by April 2002, 75% of eligible patients should receive thrombolysis within 30 minutes of arriving at hospital. A district general hospital introduced a strategy to improve door to needle times. In phase 1 (1989-95), patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction, referred by general practitioners, were assessed in the coronary care unit; all other patients were seen first in the accident and emergency department. In phase 2 (1995-7), all patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction were transferred directly to a fast track area within the coronary care unit, where nurses assess patients and doctors started treatment.

Key measures for improvement

Median door to needle time in phase 1 of 45 minutes (range 5-300 minutes), with 38% of patients treated within 30 minutes. Median door to needle time in phase 2 of 40 minutes (range 5-180 minutes), with 47% treated within 30 minutes

Strategies for change

In phase 3 (1997-2001), all patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction were transferred directly to the fast track area and assessed by a “coronary care thrombolysis nurse.” If electrocardiography confirmed the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, the nurse could initiate thrombolytic therapy (subject to guidelines and exclusions determined by the consultant cardiologists).

Effects of change

Median door to needle time in phase 3 of 15 minutes (range 5-70 minutes), with 80% of patients treated within 30 minutes. Systematic clinical review showed no cases in which a nurse initiated inappropriate thrombolysis.

Lessons learnt

Thrombolysis started by nurses is safe and effective in patients with acute myocardial infarction. It may provide a way by which the national service framework''s targets for door to needle times can be achieved.     

Time delays in provision of thrombolytic treatment in six district hospitals. Joint Audit Committee of the British Cardiac Society and a Cardiology Committee of Royal College of Physicians of London.

OBJECTIVE--To measure the delays between onset of symptoms and admission to hospital and provision of thrombolysis in patients with possible acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Observational study of patients admitted with suspected myocardial infarction during six months. SETTING--Six district general hospitals in Britain. SUBJECTS--1934 patients admitted with suspected myocardial infarction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Route of admission to hospital and time to admission and thrombolysis. RESULTS--Patients who made emergency calls did so sooner after onset of symptoms than those who called their doctor (median time 40 (95% confidence interval 30 to 52) minutes v 70 (60 to 90) minutes). General practitioners took a median of 20 (20 to 25) minutes to visit patients, rising to 30 (20 to 30) minutes during 0800-1200. The median time from call to arrival in hospital was 41 (38 to 47) minutes for patients who called an ambulance from home and 90 (90 to 94) minutes for those who contacted their doctor. The median time from arrival at hospital to thrombolysis was 80 (75 to 85) minutes for patients who were treated in the cardiac care unit and 31 (25 to 35) minutes for those treated in the accident and emergency department. CONCLUSION--The time from onset of symptoms to thrombolysis could be reduced substantially by more effective use of emergency services and faster provision of thrombolysis in accident and emergency departments.     

Guidelines for the early management of patients with myocardial infarction. British Heart Foundation Working Group.

In light of recent publications relating to resuscitation and pre-hospital treatment of patients suffering acute myocardial infarction of British Heart Foundation convened a working group to prepare guidelines outlining the responsibilities of general practitioners, ambulance services, and admitting hospitals. The guidelines emphasise the importance of the rapid provision of basic and advanced life support; adequate analgesia; accurate diagnosis; and, when indicted, thrombolytic treatment. The working group developed a standard whereby patients with acute myocardial infarction should receive thrombolysis, when appropriate, within 90 minutes of alerting the medical or ambulance service--the call to needle time. Depending on local circumstances, achieving this standard may involve direct admissions to coronary care units, "fast track" assessments in emergency departments, or pre-hospital thrombolytic treatment started by properly equipped and trained general practitioners.     

Time to treatment with thrombolytic therapy: determinants and effect on short-term nonfatal outcomes of acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the extent of delay in administration of thrombolytic therapy to patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Canada, to examine patient-specific predictors of such delay and to measure the effect of delay on short-term nonfatal cardiac outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary cohort analysis of data from the first international Global Utilization of Streptokinase and tPA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-I) trial. SETTING: Sixty-three acute care hospitals across Canada. SUBJECTS: All 2898 Canadian patients with an AMI enrolled in GUSTO-I. MAIN OUTCOMES: Time before arrival at a hospital ("symptom-to-door" time) and time from arrival to administration of therapy ("door-to-needle" time) for patients who had an AMI outside of a hospital, in clinically relevant categories; proportions of patients with nonfatal, serious cardiac events, including shock, sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation and asystole. RESULTS: Of the total number of patients enrolled, records were complete for 2708; 2542 of these patients (93.9%) had an AMI outside of a hospital. These 2542 patients presented a median 81 (interquartile range 50 to 130) minutes after the onset of symptoms, and the median time to treatment in hospital was 85 (interquartile range 61 to 115) minutes. Whereas a greater proportion of Canadian patients than of patients enrolled in GUSTO-I in other countries reached hospital within 2 hours of symptom onset (71.5% v. 61.2%, p < 0.001), a greater proportion of Canadian patients experienced in-hospital treatment delays of more than 1 hour (75.3% v. 57.1%, p < 0.001). In an analysis of all 2708 patients with complete records, both the unadjusted and adjusted odds of nonfatal cardiac events for those treated 4 to 6 hours after symptom onset were significantly higher than for those treated within 2 hours (odds ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.37). CONCLUSION: After arrival at a hospital, Canadian patients enrolled in GUSTO-I received thrombolytic therapy more slowly than trial enrollees in other countries. Such delays are already known to decrease the rate of short-term survival after AMI. The findings further show that long time to treatment also increases the odds of nonfatal, serious cardiac events. Hospitals and physicians caring for patients with AMI should routinely assess whether and how they can improve door-to-needle times.     

Patient and general practitioner delays in acute myocardial infarction

The longest component of the total delay in coming under coronary care is patient delay, and it has been suggested that public education might be used to make it shorter. The patterns of patient delay were studied in 450 patients with acute myocardial infarction uncomplicated by cardiac arrest out of hospital, of whom 243 had a previous history of ischaemic heart disease. Patient delays had a skewed distribution with a modal delay of up to one hour, a median delay of two hours, and a mean delay of 10 hours. Two thirds of patients had sought help from their general practitioners within four hours of the onset of symptoms. During the first four hours the longer that patients delayed the lower was the subsequent mortality (27%, 18%, and 9% for delays of one hour or less, up to two hours, and up to four hours, respectively), but patients who delayed four to eight hours had the highest mortality of all (38%). Neither the median value nor the pattern of patient delays was altered by a previous history of ischaemic heart disease.There were pronounced differences in doctor delays, depending on the patient''s age, delay time, and ultimate place of treatment, showing that the doctors'' behaviour was influenced before they had seen their patients. Nevertheless, the median total delay for patients aged up to 70 was one hour 35 minutes, and a higher proportion of patients were seen early after infarction than in recent hospital trials of thrombolytic treatment.These findings suggest that the patients'' call for help and the doctors'' response may be at an instinctive level according to the patients'' distress; these patterns of behaviour may be difficult to modify by public education.     

Comparison of case fatality in south Asian and white patients after acute myocardial infarction: observational study.

OBJECTIVE--To compare mortality in south Asian (Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi) and white patients in the six months after hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Observational study. SETTING--District general hospital in east London. PATIENTS--149 south Asian and 313 white patients aged < 65 years admitted to the coronary care unit with acute myocardial infarction from 1 December 1988 to 31 December 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--All cause mortality in the first six months after myocardial infarction. RESULTS--The admission rate in the south Asians was estimated to be 2.04 times that in the white patients. Most aspects of treatment were similar in the two groups, except that a higher proportion of the south Asians received thrombolytic drugs (81.2% v 73.8%). After adjustment for age, sex, previous myocardial infarction, and treatment with thrombolysis or aspirin, or both, the south Asians had a poorer survival over the six months from myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 2.02 (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 3.56), P = 0.018), but a substantially higher proportion were diabetic (38% v 11%, P < 0.001), and additional adjustment for diabetes removed much of their excess risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26 (0.68 to 2.33), P = 0.47). CONCLUSION--South Asian patients had a higher risk of admission with myocardial infarction and a higher risk of death over the ensuing six months than the white patients. The higher case fatality among the south Asians, largely attributable to diabetes, may contribute to the increased risk of death from coronary heart disease in south Asians living in Britain.     

Feasibility,safety, and efficacy of domiciliary thrombolysis by general practitioners: Grampian region early anistreplase trial. GREAT Group.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of domiciliary thrombolysis by general practitioners. DESIGN--Randomised double blind parallel group trial of anistreplase 30 units intravenously and placebo given either at home or in hospital. SETTING--29 rural practices in Grampian admitting patients to teaching hospitals in Aberdeen (average distance 36 (range 16-62) miles). PATIENTS--311 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction and no contraindications to thrombolytic therapy seen at home within four hours of onset of symptoms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Time saving, adverse events, Q wave infarction, left ventricular function. RESULTS--Anistreplase was administered at home 101 minutes after onset of symptoms, while anistreplase was given in hospital 240 minutes after onset of symptoms (median times). Adverse events after thrombolysis were infrequent and, apart from cardiac arrest, not a serious problem when they occurred in the community: seven of 13 patients were resuscitated after cardiac arrest out of hospital. By three months after trial entry the relative reduction of deaths from all causes in patients given thrombolytic therapy at home was 49% (13/163 (8.0%) v 23/148 (15.5%); difference -7.6% (95% confidence interval -14.7% to -0.4%), p = 0.04). Full thickness Q wave infarction was less common in patients with confirmed infarction receiving treatment at home (65/122 (53.3%) v 76/112 (67.9%); difference -14.6% (95% confidence interval -27.0% to -2.2%), p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners provided rapid pre-hospital coronary care of a high standard. Compared with later administration in hospital, giving anistreplase at home resulted in reduction in mortality, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer Q wave infarcts, and better left ventricular function. Benefits were most marked where thrombolytic therapy was administered within two hours of the onset of symptoms.     

Prospective observational cohort study of time saved by prehospital thrombolysis for ST elevation myocardial infarction delivered by paramedics

Objectives To evaluate a system of prehospital thrombolysis, delivered by paramedics, in meeting the national service framework''s targets for the management of acute myocardial infarction.Design Prospective observational cohort study comparing patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction considered for thrombolysis in the prehospital environment with patients treated in hospital.Setting The catchment area of a large teaching hospital, including urban and rural areas.Participants 201 patients presenting concurrently over a 12 month period who had changes to the electrocardiogram that were diagnostic of acute myocardial infarction or who received thrombolysis for suspected acute myocardial infarction.Main outcome measures Time from first medical contact to initiation of thrombolysis (call to needle time), number of patients given thrombolysis appropriately, and all cause mortality in hospital.Results The median call to needle time for patients treated before arriving in hospital (n=28) was 52 (95% confidence interval 41 to 62) minutes. Patients from similar rural areas who were treated in hospital (n=43) had a median time of 125 (104 to 140) minutes. This represents a median time saved of 73 minutes (P < 0.001). Sixty minutes after medical contact 64% of patients (18/28) treated before arrival in hospital had received thrombolysis; this compares with 4% of patients (2/43) in a cohort from similar areas. Median call to needle time for patients from urban areas (n=107) was 80 (78 to 93) minutes. Myocardial infarction was confirmed in 89% of patients (25/28) who had received prehospital thrombolysis; this compares with 92% (138/150) in the two groups of patients receiving thrombolysis in hospital.Conclusions Thrombolysis delivered by paramedics with support from the base hospital can meet the national targets for early thrombolysis. The system has been shown to work well and can be introduced without delay.     

Initiating thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: whose job is it anyway?

Although thrombolytic therapy has clearly become the standard of care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), its delivery in Canada continues to be extremely variable. Significant unnecessary delays in the initiation of this treatment still occur in many hospitals and constitute the most common avoidable cause of death in patients with AMI. The authors agree with the statement by representatives of the member organizations of the Emergency Cardiac Care Coalition (see pages 483 to 487 of this issue) that emergency service providers must get patients to hospital sooner and that all eligible patients should receive thrombolytic therapy within 30 minutes of their arrival at hospital. This objective requires that thrombolytic therapy be initiated by emergency physicians and be supported by well-established guidelines for its use.     

静脉溶栓时机对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者溶栓效果及主要不良心脏事件发生率的影响

目的:探讨静脉溶栓时机对急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者溶栓效果及主要不良心脏事件发生率的影响。方法:将2016年1月至2017年12月我院接诊的314例急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者纳入本研究,按照溶栓治疗时间不同分为A组(发病至溶栓时间6 h)172例、B组(发病至溶栓时间为6～12 h)102例和C组(发病至溶栓时间12 h)40例,比较三组患者溶栓效果、溶栓后ST段回落情况以及住院期间主要不良心脏事件发生情况。结果:A组患者梗死冠脉溶通率、溶栓后ST段回落幅度高于B组和C组,且B组高于C组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。A组患者治疗后ST段回落最大幅度所需时间、住院期间主要不良心脏事件总发生率低于B组和C组,且B组低于C组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者发病后6 h内静脉溶栓治疗梗死冠脉溶通率更高、ST段回落效果更好,可降低住院期间主要不良心脏事件发生风险。     

Magnitude of benefit from earlier thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: new evidence from Grampian region early anistreplase trial (GREAT)

OBJECTIVE--To generalise from the results of the Grampian region early anistreplase trial (GREAT) and to express the benefit of earlier thrombolysis in terms of lives saved per hour of earlier treatment. DESIGN--Multivariate analysis of a randomised double blind trial. SETTING--29 rural practices in Grampian region and teaching hospitals in Aberdeen. SUBJECTS--311 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction and without contraindications to thrombolysis who were seen by their general practitioners within four hours of the start of symptoms. INTERVENTIONS--Anisterplase 30 units given intravenously, either by general practitioners before hospitalisation or later in hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Death within 30 months of entry into trial. RESULTS--Death within 30 months was positively related to age (P < 0.0001) and to delay between start of symptoms and thrombolytic treatment (P = 0.0004). However, the probability of dying rose exponentially with earlier presentation, so death within 30 months was negatively related to the logarithm of the time of randomisation (P = 0.0163). In patients presenting two hours after start of symptoms each hour''s delay in receiving thrombolysis led to the loss of 21 lives per 1000 within 30 days (95% confidence interval 1 to 94 lives per 1000) (P = 0.03) and 69 lives per 1000 within 30 months (16 to 141 lives per 1000) (P = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS--The magnitude of the benefit from earlier thrombolysis is such that giving thrombolytic treatment to patients with acute myocardial infarction should be accorded the same degree of urgency as the treatment of cardiac arrest.     

Prospective evaluation of eligibility for thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES--To determine the proportion of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction who are eligible for thrombolytic therapy. DESIGN--Cohort follow up study. SETTING--The four coronary care units in Auckland, New Zealand. SUBJECTS--All 3014 patients presenting to the units with suspected myocardial infarction in 1993. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Eligibility for reperfusion with thrombolytic therapy (presentation within 12 hours of the onset of ischaemic chest pain with ST elevation > or = 2 mm in leads V1-V3, ST elevation > or = 1 mm in any other two contiguous leads, or new left bundle branch block); proportions of (a) patients eligible for reperfusion and (b) patients with contraindications to thrombolysis; death (including causes); definite myocardial infarction. RESULTS--948 patients had definite myocardial infarction, 124 probable myocardial infarction, and nine ST elevation but no infarction; 1274 patients had unstable angina and 659 chest pain of other causes. Of patients with definite or probable myocardial infarction, 576 (53.3%) were eligible for reperfusion, 39 had definite contraindications to thrombolysis (risk of bleeding). Hence 49.7% of patients (537/1081) were eligible for thrombolysis and 43.5% (470) received this treatment. Hospital mortality among patients eligible for reperfusion was 11.7% (55/470 cases) among those who received thrombolysis and 17.0% (18/106) among those who did not. CONCLUSIONS--On current criteria about half of patients admitted to coronary care units with definite or probable myocardial infarction are eligible for thrombolytic therapy. Few eligible patients have definite contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. Mortality for all community admissions for myocardial infarction remains high.     

Inpatient deaths from acute myocardial infarction, 1982-92: analysis of data in the Nottingham heart attack register.

OBJECTIVE: To assess longitudinal trends in admissions, management, and inpatient mortality from acute myocardial infarction over 10 years. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis based on the Nottingham heart attack register. SETTING: Two district general hospitals serving a defined urban and rural population. SUBJECTS: All patients admitted with a confirmed acute myocardial infarction during 1982-4 and 1989-92 (excluding 1991, when data were not collected). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of patients, background characteristics, time from onset of symptoms to admission, ward of admission, treatment, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Admissions with acute myocardial infarction increased from 719 cases in 1982 to 960 in 1992. The mean age increased from 62.1 years to 66.6 years (P < 0.001), the duration of stay fell from 8.7 days to 7.2 days (P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients aged 75 years and over admitted to a coronary care unit increased significantly from 29.1% to 61.2%. A higher proportion of patients were admitted to hospital within 6 hours of onset of their symptoms in 1989-92 than in 1982-4, but 15% were still admitted after the time window for thrombolysis. Use of beta blockers increased threefold between 1982 and 1992, aspirin was used in over 70% of patients after 1989, and thrombolytic use increased 1.3-fold between 1989 and 1992. Age and sex adjusted odds ratios for inpatient mortality remained unchanged over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increasing uptake of the "proved" treatments, inpatient mortality from myocardial infarction did not change between 1982 and 1992.     

Tuesday morning rounds

Survival in the acute phase of myocardial infarction and the subsequent prognosis are critically dependent on the time between onset of symptoms and medical intervention. Studies have shown that the time that patients take to decide to seek help accounts for most of the delay. We documented the length of time from onset of symptoms to arrival in hospital for 201 patients consecutively admitted to one of four hospitals in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton between October 1986 and February 1987 for suspected acute myocardial infarction. Of the 160 survivors 42% waited more than 4 hours (a critical time for effective thrombolytic therapy) before coming to hospital, and nearly a third did not arrive within 6 hours. On the basis of interviews conducted with 42 patients, sociodemographic factors, education, past experience with an acute myocardial infarction, a previous diagnosis of angina and a coronary-prone behaviour pattern did not explain the delay. How patients perceived the seriousness of their symptoms and how they used other illness-related coping strategies explained 46% of the variance in the delay. Interventions aimed at reducing the delay between onset of symptoms and treatment must focus on patients'' preadmission behaviour.     

Do women with acute myocardial infarction receive the same treatment as men?

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether women with acute myocardial infarction in the Nottingham health district receive the same therapeutic interventions as their male counterparts. DESIGN--Retrospective study. SETTING--University and City Hospitals, Nottingham. PATIENTS--All patients admitted with a suspected myocardial infarction during 1989 and 1990. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Route and timing of admission to hospital, ward of admission, treatment, interventions in hospital, and mortality. RESULTS--Women with myocardial infarction took longer to arrive in hospital than men. They were less likely to be admitted to the coronary care unit and were therefore also less likely to receive thrombolytic treatment. They seemed to have more severe infarcts, with higher Killip classes, and had a slightly higher mortality during admission. They were less likely than men to receive secondary prophylaxis by being discharged taking beta blockers or aspirin. CONCLUSIONS--Survival chances both in hospital and after discharge in women with acute myocardial infarction are reduced because they do not have the same opportunity for therapeutic intervention as men.     

Guidelines for the use of intravenous thrombolytic agents in acute myocardial infarction. Ontario Medical Association Consensus Group on Thrombolytic Therapy.

A consensus group convened under the auspices of the Ontario Medical Association produced guidelines for the use of intravenous thrombolytic agents in acute myocardial infarction. The guidelines, updated to December 1988, include the following points. 1) Any hospital that routinely accepts the responsibility for looking after patients with acute myocardial infarction could offer thrombolytic therapy if monitoring facilities are available and if the staff are experienced in the treatment of cardiac rhythm disturbances. 2) Before treatment, all patients must be carefully screened for factors predisposing to hemorrhagic complications. 3) A physician should be clearly designated as responsible for the care of the patient receiving an infusion and be available in the event of problems. 4) For the two approved agents the usual dosages are as follows: streptokinase, 1.5 million units given over 1 hour; and tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA), 100 mg over 3 hours, delivered as 60 mg in the first hour (of which 6 to 7 mg should be given as a bolus in the first 1 to 2 minutes) and then an infusion of 20 mg/h over the next 2 hours. 5) Intravenous thrombolytics should be considered for any patient with presumed acute myocardial infarction, as suggested by prolonged chest pain or other appropriate symptoms and typical electrocardiographic changes. Expeditious treatment is critical, since myocardial necrosis occurs within hours. 6) Emergency angiography is indicated for patients with hemodynamic compromise and no apparent response to streptokinase or tPA and in those with recurrent chest pain suggestive of acute myocardial infarction despite an apparent response to intravenous thrombolysis. Angiography before discharge is recommended for patients with postinfarction angina or evidence from noninvasive testing of significant residual ischemic risk. 7) There is insufficient evidence to choose between streptokinase and tPA on the basis of the two most important outcome measures: patient survival and myocardial preservation. More conclusive evidence comparing tPA, streptokinase and another promising agent, acylated plasminogen-streptokinase activator complex, will be available in 1989-90.     

Attitudes of general practitioners to prehospital thrombolysis.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate reasons for general practitioners not giving thrombolytic treatment to eligible patients with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Postal questionnaires were sent to 424 general practitioners. SUBJECTS--97 general practitioners who had taken part in the Grampian region early anistreplase trial, 185 whose practices in Scotland were at least 24 km from a district general hospital, and 142 who had attended postgraduate conferences at which thrombolysis had been discussed; 87, 158, and 125 respectively responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Answers to questions about readiness to use thrombolytic treatment. RESULTS--Response rate was 87% (370/424). Almost all respondents (350) were convinced of benefits of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction, and 277 were convinced that there were additional benefits from its administration in the community at first opportunity. Most doctors working 16 km or more from hospital thought that giving treatment at home would appreciably save time (200/274). Most doctors agreed that they could make time to give thrombolytic treatment (278), and would be willing to record an electrocardiogram (284), and would be able to interpret it (280). Sixty four respondents (17%) reported using thrombolytic treatment in previous year. Among non-users, 150 (49%) were unwilling to use thrombolytic treatment without further training. While many non-users (210 (69%)) were willing to use thrombolytic treatment without encouragement from Department of Health, 184 (60%) were unwilling to use it unless encouraged to do so by their local cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS--The need to become better informed about thrombolysis and lack of encouragement from local cardiologists were important factors preventing wider use of thrombolytic treatment in the community by general practitioners.     

Recommendations for ensuring early thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada,the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians for the Emergency Cardiac Care Coalition.

OBJECTIVE: To recommend practical steps to ensure early thrombolytic therapy and thereby reduce mortality and morbidity associated with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OPTIONS: Various factors were considered that influence time to thrombolysis related to patients, independent practitioners and health care systems. OUTCOMES: Reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with AMI. EVIDENCE: Early initiation of thrombolytic therapy reduces morbidity and mortality associated with AMI. The ECC Coalition analysed the factors that might impede early implementation of thrombolytic therapy. VALUES: Published data were reviewed, and recommendations were based on consensus opinion of the Emergency Cardiac Care (ECC) Coalition. The ECC Coalition comprises 20 professional, nongovernment and government organizations and has a mandate to improve emergency cardiac care services through collaboration. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Early thrombolytic therapy reduces morbidity and mortality associated with AMI. Implementation of the recommendations will result in reduced time to thrombolytic therapy, streamlining of current practices and enhanced cooperation among health care professionals to expedite care. Depending on existing practices, implementation may require protocol development, and public and professional education. Although costs are associated with educating the public and health care professionals, they are outweighed by the financial and social benefits of reduced morbidity and mortality. RECOMMENDATIONS: Early recognition of AMI symptoms by the public and health care professionals, early access to the emergency medical services system and early action by emergency care providers in administering thrombolytic therapy (within 30 minutes after the patient''s arrival at the emergency department). VALIDATION: No similar consensus statements or practice guidelines for thrombolytic therapy in Canada are available for comparison.