Related Articles

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) evolves as a time-dependent wave front of ischemia when the abrupt rupture of an unstable fatty plaque initiates coronary thrombosis. The prospect of salvaging potentially viable myocardial tissue has led to the development of reperfusion strategies using thrombolytic agents. The efficacy of thrombolytic therapy is determined in large measure by the speed with which it is initiated. It is therefore vital to minimize the "door-to-needle" time once a patient with AMI arrives at the emergency department. In this issue (see pages 497 to 505) Dr. Jafna L. Cox and associates report that Canadian centres participating in the GUSTO-I trial were significantly slower to initiate thrombolytic therapy than their US counterparts. In this editorial Cox and associates' report is reviewed against the background of similar trials, and strategies to minimize delays in the initiation of thrombolytic therapy are suggested.

OBJECTIVE—To quantify the change in door to needle time when delivery of thrombolytic treatment of acute myocardial infarction was changed from the coronary care unit to the emergency department.
DESIGN—A comparative observational study using prospectively collected data.
SETTING—Coronary care unit and emergency department of an Australian teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS—89 patients receiving thrombolysis in coronary care unit between June 1994 and January 1996, and 100 patients treated in the emergency department between April 1997 and May 1998.
INTERVENTIONS—From April 1997, by agreement between cardiology and emergency medicine, all patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving thrombolysis were treated by emergency physicians in the emergency department.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE—Door to needle time measured from time of arrival at the hospital to start of thrombolysis. Other outcomes included pain to needle time and mortality.
RESULTS—Median door to needle times were less for patients treated in the emergency department than in the coronary care unit (37 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 33 to 44 v 80 minutes, 95% CI 70 to 89, respectively; p < 0.0001). Door to needle time was under 60 minutes in 83% of emergency department patients and 26% of coronary care unit patients (57% difference, 95% CI 45% to 69%; p < 0.0001). Median pain to needle time was less for emergency department patients than for coronary care unit patients (161 minutes, 95% CI 142 to 177 v 195 minutes, 95% CI 180 to 209; p = 0.004); times of less than 90 minutes occurred in 18% of emergency department patients v 1% of coronary care unit patients (17% difference, 95% CI 9% to 25%; p < 0.05). Overall mortality was similar in patients treated in the emergency department and the coronary care unit.
CONCLUSIONS—With a collaborative interdepartmental approach, thrombolytic treatment of acute myocardial infarction was more rapid in the emergency department, without compromising patient safety. This should improve the outcome in patients with infarcts treated with thrombolytic agents.


Keywords: thrombolysis; door to needle time; treatment delay; acute myocardial infarction

Problem

Delay in starting thrombolytic treatment in patients arriving at hospital with chest pain who are diagnosed as having acute myocardial infarction.

Design

Audit 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.

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.

Objective: To reduce the time between arrival at hospital of a patient with acute myocardial infarction and administration of thrombolytic therapy (door to needle time) by the introduction of nurse initiated thrombolysis in the accident and emergency department.

Methods: Two acute chest pain nurse specialists (ACPNS) based in A&E for 62.5 hours of the week were responsible for initiating thrombolysis in the A&E department. The service reverts to a "fast track" system outside of these hours, with the on call medical team prescribing thrombolysis on the coronary care unit. Prospectively gathered data were analysed for a nine month period and a head to head comparison made between the mean and median door to needle times for both systems of thrombolysis delivery.

Results: Data from 91 patients were analysed; 43 (47%) were thrombolysed in A&E by the ACPNS and 48 (53%) were thrombolysed in the coronary care unit by the on call medical team. The ACPNS achieved a median door to needle time of 23 minutes (IQR=17 to 32) compared with 56 minutes (IQR=34 to 79.5) for the fast track. The proportion of patients thrombolysed in 30 minutes by the ACPNS and fast track system was 72% (31 of 43) and 21% (10 of 48) respectively (difference=51%, 95% confidence intervals 34% to 69%, p<0.05).

Conclusion: Diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and administration of thrombolysis by experienced cardiology nurses in A&E is a safe and effective strategy for reducing door to needle times, even when compared with a conventional fast track system.

Fibrinolytic therapy remains the most common reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), particularly in smaller centers. Previous studies evaluated the relationship between time to treatment and outcomes when few patients were treated within 30 minutes of hospital arrival and many did not receive modern adjunctive medications. To quantify the impact of delay in door-to-needle time on mortality in a recent and representative cohort of STEMI patients, we analyzed a cohort of 62,470 STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy at 973 hospitals that participated in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction from 1999–2002. We employed hierarchical models to evaluate the independent effect of door-to-needle time on in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was lower with shorter door-to-needle times (2.9% for ≤30 minutes, 4.1% for 31–45 minutes, and 6.2% for >45 minutes; p< 0.001 for trend). Compared with those experiencing door-to-needle times ≤30 minutes, the adjusted odd ratios (OR) of dying were 1.17 (confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.31) and 1.37 (CI 1.23–1.52; p for trend <0.001) for those patients with door-to-needle times of 31–45 minutes and >45 minutes, respectively. This relationship was particularly pronounced in those presenting within 1 hour of symptom onset to presentation time [OR: 1.25 (CI 1.01–1.54) and 1.54 (CI 1.27–1.87) respectively; p for trend <0.001]. In conclusion, timely administration of fibrinolytic therapy continues to significantly impact mortality in the modern era, particularly in patients presenting early after symptom onset.

Background: Rapid reperfusion improves survival for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to analyze recent trends in door-to-reperfusion time and identify hospital characteristics associated with improved performance.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 3 and 4 between 1999 and 2002, we analyzed door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times in patients admitted with STEMI and receiving fibrinolytic therapy (n=68,439 patients in 1,015 hospitals) or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=33,647 patients in 421 hospitals) within 6 hours of hospital arrival.

Results: In 1999, only 46% of the patients in the fibrinolytic therapy cohort were treated within the recommended 30-minute door-to-needle time; only 35% of the patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention cohort were treated within the recommended 90-minute door-to-balloon time. Improvement in these times to reperfusion over the 4-year study period was not statistically significant (door-to-needle: -0.01 min/yr, CI -0.24, +0.23, p > 0.9; door-to-balloon: -0.57 min/yr, CI -1.24, +0.10, p=0.09). Only 33% (337/1,015) of hospitals improved door-to-needle time by more than 1 minute per year, and 26% (110/421) improved door-to-balloon time by more than 3 minutes per year. No hospital characteristic was significantly associated with improvement in door-to-needle time. Only high annual percutaneous coronary intervention volume and location in New England were significantly associated with greater improvement in door-to-balloon time.

Conclusions: Fewer than half of patients with STEMI receive reperfusion in the recommended door-to-needle or door-to-balloon time, and mean time to reperfusion has not decreased significantly in recent years. Relatively few hospitals have shown substantial improvement.

Condensed Abstract

We analyzed door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times in patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and receiving fibrinolytic therapy (n=68,439 patients in 1,015 hospitals) or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=33,647 patients in 421 hospitals) within 6 hours of hospital arrival in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 3 and 4. Despite national initiatives to measure and reduce these times, guideline recommendations were met less than half of the time, with no substantial trend toward improvement. Nevertheless, some individual hospitals experienced substantial improvement while others worsened. Structural features of hospitals did not adequately predict change in performance. Other factors need to be identified and used by hospitals for performance improvement programs.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficiency with which the accident and emergency (A&E) department provides thrombolytic treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: A prospective observational study based in a teaching hospital for one year. All patients who presented with the clinical and electrocardiographic indications for thrombolytic treatment were studied. Patients were grouped according to route of admission. After logarithmic transformation, the "door to needle times" of the groups were compared using a two tailed Student's t test. Arrhythmias and complications after thrombolytic treatment were noted. The appropriateness of the treatment was assessed retrospectively by review of the clinical records and electrocardiograms, judged against locally agreed eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Data from 153 patients were analysed; 138/153 (90%) patients were admitted via the A&E department. The shortest door to needle times were seen in those patients thrombolysed by A&E staff within the A&E department (mean 43.8 minutes). The transfer of A&E patients to the coronary care unit (CCU) was associated with a significant increase in the door to needle time (mean 58.8 minutes, p = 0.004). Only one malignant arrhythmia occurred during the administration of thrombolysis in the A&E department, and this was managed effectively. No arrhythmias occurred during transfer of thrombolysed patients to the CCU. In every case, the decision to administer thrombolysis was retrospectively judged to have been appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The A&E department provides appropriate, safe, and timely thrombolytic treatment for patients with AMI. Transferring A&E patients to the CCU before thrombolysis is associated with an unnecessary treatment delay.

Design: Retrospective observational case-control study comparing patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with thrombolytic therapy in the prehospital environment with patients treated in hospital.

Setting: Wyre Forest District and Worcestershire Royal Hospital, UK.

Participants: (A) All patients who received prehospital thrombolytic therapy for suspected AMI accompanied by electrocardiographic features considered diagnostic.

(B) Patients who received thrombolytic therapy after arrival at hospital for the same indication, matched with group A by age, gender and postcode.

Main outcome measures:

1. Call to needle time

2. Percentage of patients treated within one hour of calling for medical help

3. Appropriateness of thrombolytic therapy

4. Safety of thrombolytic therapy

Results: 1. The median call to needle time for patients treated before arriving in hospital (n = 27) was 40 minutes with an inter-quartile range 25–112 (mean 43 minutes). Patients from the same area who were treated in hospital (n = 27) had a median time of 106 minutes with an inter-quartile range 50–285 (mean 126 minutes). This represents a median time saved by prehospital treatment of 66 minutes.

2. 60 minutes after medical contact, 96 % of patients treated before arrival in hospital had received thrombolytic therapy; this compares with 4% of patients from similar areas treated in hospital.

3. Myocardial infarction was confirmed in 92% (25/27) of patients who received prehospital thrombolytic therapy and similarly 92% (25/27) of those given in-hospital thrombolytic therapy.

4. No major bleeding occurred in either group. Group A suffered fewer in-hospital deaths than group B (1 versus 4). Cardiogenic shock (3 patients) and ventricular arrhythmia (5 patients) were seen only in group B.

Conclusion: Paramedic-delivered thrombolytic therapy can be delivered appropriately, safely, and effectively. Time gains are substantial and can meet the national targets for early thrombolytic therapy in the majority of patients.

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the effect of nurse initiated thrombolysis on door to needle time (the interval between arriving at the hospital and starting thrombolytic treatment) in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
DESIGN—Comparison of door to needle times before and after the employment of nurses trained and approved to initiate thrombolysis without prescription by a doctor but with a protocol for rapid triage of patients with chest pain.
SETTING—A district general hospital.
SUBJECTS—All patients admitted with suspected myocardial infarction between April 1995 and March 1999.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Speed (door to needle time) and appropriateness of administration of thrombolytic drugs to patients with acute myocardial infarction who gave a characteristic history and had appropriate criteria on the admission ECG.
RESULTS—During seven periods (each of four months) before the introduction of nurse initiated thrombolysis and a new chest pain triage protocol, the median door to needle time varied from 50-58 minutes. In four periods (each of 4-6 months) following the introduction of the changes, the median door to needle time was 25-30 minutes. The improvement was significant (p < 0.001). Nurses trained to initiate thrombolysis currently provide cover for 66% of the time. Median door to needle time for nurses was 15 minutes. Median door to needle time for junior doctors improved to 35 minutes. The median door to needle times when nurses initiated thrombolysis was significantly shorter than when doctors did so (p < 0.001). There have been no inappropriate management decisions by nurses approved to initiate thrombolysis.
CONCLUSIONS—The use of nurse initiated thrombolysis has resulted in a clinically important reduction in the time taken for thrombolysis to be started in patients with acute myocardial infarction.


Keywords: thrombolysis; acute myocardial infarction; door to needle time

Early thrombolytic therapy after acute myocardial infarction is important in reducing mortality. To evaluate a system for reducing in-hospital delays to thrombolysis pain to needle and door to needle times to thrombolysis were audited in a major accident and emergency (A and E) department of a district general hospital and its coronary care unit (CCU), situated about 5 km away. Baseline performance over six months was assessed retrospectively from notes of 43 consecutive patients (group 1) transferred to the CCU before receiving thrombolysis. Subsequently, selected patients (23) were allowed to receive thrombolysis in the A and E department before transfer to the CCU. The agent was administered by medical staff in the department after receiving oral confirmation of myocardial infarction from the admitting medical officer in the CCU on receipt of fax transmission of the electrocardiogram. A second prospective audit during six months from the start of the new procedure established time intervals in 23 patients eligible to receive thrombolysis in the A and E department (group 2b) and 30 ineligible patients who received thrombolysis in the CCU (group 2a). The groups did not differ significantly in case mix, pre-hospital delay, or transfer time to the CCU. In group 2b door to needle time and pain to needle time were reduced significantly (geometric mean 38 min v 121 min (group 2a) and 128 min (group 1); 141 min v 237 min (group 2a) and 242 min (group 1) respectively, both p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse effects was not significantly different. Nine deaths occurred (six in group 1, three in group 2b), an in-hospital mortality of 9.9%. Thrombolysis can be safely instituted in the A and E department in selected patients, significantly reducing delay to treatment.

Objectives

To assess the effect an ambulance pre‐alert call for patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) would have on door to needle (DTN) times.

Methods

We carried out back to back audits of DTN times following the initiation of the pre‐alert calls.

Participants

All patients thrombolysed within the emergency department between July 2003 and April 2004 (inclusive).

Statistical analysis

Mean DTN times and time to ECG pre‐change and post‐change were compared using the Two sample t test. The Fisher's exact test was used to compare pre‐change and post‐change proportions of patients seen within guideline times.

Results

In total, 73 patients were thrombolysed with 40 of these arriving by ambulance. Eighteen of these 40 were pre‐change and 22 were post‐change. Four patients were excluded. Fifty per cent of the pre‐change group had a DTN time of <30 minutes compared with 91% of the post‐change group (p = 0.005, Fisher's exact test). The phase one mean DTN time was found to be significantly greater than that for phase two (Two sample t test, p = 0.016; 95% CI 1.6 to 14.6).

Conclusions

There was a significant reduction in DTN times after the introduction of the pre‐alert call.

Objective: To analyse differences in the presentation and management of Bangladeshi and white patients with Q wave acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: East London teaching hospital.

Participants: 263 white and 108 Bangladeshi patients admitted with Q wave AMI.

Main outcome measure: Character of presenting symptoms, their interpretation by the patient, and the provision of emergency treatment.

Results: There were no significant differences between Bangladeshi and white patients in the time from pain onset to hospital arrival (arrival time 64.5 (117.5) minutes v 63.0 (140.3) minutes, p = 0.63), but once in hospital it took almost twice as long for Bangladeshi as for white patients to receive thrombolysis (median (interquartile range) door to needle time 42.5 (78.0) minutes v 26.0 (47.7) minutes, p = 0.012). Bangladeshis were significantly less likely than whites to complain of central chest pain (odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.38; p = 0.0006) or to offer classic descriptions of the character of the pain (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; p = 0.0118). These differences persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and risk factor profile differences including diabetes. Proportions of Bangladeshi and whites interpreting their symptoms as “heart attack” were similar (45.2% v 46.9%; p = 0.99).

Conclusions: Bangladeshi patients with AMI often present with atypical symptoms, which may lead to slower triage in the casualty department and delay in essential treatment. This needs recognition by emergency staff if mortality rates in this high risk group are to be reduced.

BACKGROUND:

Ischemic time is a major determinant of infarct size in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Emphasis is placed on reducing the door-to-reperfusion therapy time component, whereas the symptom-to-door time is often overlooked.

OBJECTIVES:

To correlate the symptom-to-door time with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with STEMI.

METHODS:

Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)-McGill was a cohort study of consecutive patients with STEMI who presented to three adult university hospitals. Multivariate linear regression was performed to correlate the symptom-to-door time with postinfarction LVEF adjusted for reperfusion method, prior myocardial infarction and components of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score.

RESULTS:

There were 188 patients, with a mean age of 66 years. On arrival to hospital, 23% of patients were in Killip class II to IV and 87% received reperfusion therapy (20% fibrinolytic therapy and 67% primary percutaneous coronary intervention). The median symptom-to-door time was 120 min (first quartile: 60 min, third quartile: 290 min) and the median door-to-reperfusion therapy time was 93 min (first quartile: 54 min, third quartile: 155 min). Three variables were independently correlated with LVEF in the study’s regression model: symptom-to-door time (beta: –0.66, 95% CI –1.18 to –0.14; P=0.01), Killip class II to IV on arrival (beta: –6.43, 95% CI –11.87 to –0.99; P=0.02) and anterior territory of the infarction (beta: –5.86, 95% CI –10.55 to –1.18; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS:

Symptom-to-door time was negatively correlated with postinfarction LVEF in patients with STEMI. Strategies to shorten this delay, such as educating high-risk patients about the symptoms of AMI, should be considered.

Objectives: To answer the question "In patients presenting with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) and no contraindication to thrombolysis, does the introduction of Tenecteplase reduce door to needle times?"

Methods: Firstly, an observational study was performed to compare the time taken to prepare standard thrombolytic therapy with Tenecteplase. Secondly, door to needle times were compared before and after the introduction of Tenecteplase. The study was powered to be 80% sure of finding a change of 10% in the number of patients meeting the national service framework standard of a 30 minute door to needle time.

Results: Tenecteplase takes 10.5 minutes less time to prepare than standard treatment (p value <0.001). After the introduction of Tenecteplase the percentage of patients receiving thrombolysis in 30 minutes increased from 58% to 76% (p value <0.01)

Conclusion: Tenecteplase is quicker to prepare than standard therapy, resulting in a significant improvement in performance against the national service framework target.

Optimal management of acute myocardial infarction requires rapid administration of thrombolytic therapy. However, only patients who fulfill the following specific criteria are likely to benefit from this treatment: admission within 12 hours of the onset of symptoms, no contraindications, ST elevation or possible new-onset left bundle branch block on the admission electrocardiogram. We employed an aggressive policy to reduce the delay between admission to hospital and the administration of thrombolysis (the 'door-to-needle time'), and investigated whether this approach affected the accuracy of administration of thrombolysis. Patients admitted to the cardiac care unit with acute myocardial infarction, or who were thrombolysed, were identified retrospectively over two equivalent 4-month periods before and after implementation of our policy. Patients were considered eligible for thrombolysis if they fulfilled the criteria mentioned above. The mean (SD) door-to-needle time for all patients who received thrombolysis on admission decreased from 61(70) to 19(20) minutes (p = 0.0004). The proportion of patients eligible for thrombolysis who received treatment increased from 24/38 to 30/30 (p = 0.0002). However, the proportion of patients receiving thrombolysis who did not fulfill our criteria also increased, from 3/27 to 11/41 (p = 0.1). There were no complications of thrombolysis in the first study period, but two cerebrovascular accidents in the second period; both patients fulfiled our criteria for treatment. We conclude that simple educational measures greatly reduced door-to-needle times and led to a higher proportion of eligible patients receiving thrombolysis. However, greater pressure on medical staff to make rapid management decisions increased the proportion of patients being thrombolysed inappropriately.

Early coronary reperfusion has been established as the optimal treatment for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. A treatment protocol, previously described, has been designed to reduce delay in achieving recanalization of the culprit coronary artery. Over a period of about 4 years, Door-to-Balloon time has been analyzed for patients arriving in the Emergency Department with this condition. During that time the process was enhanced by the ability of ambulance personnel to transmit 12 lead EKG's from the field. Door-to-Balloon times have been analyzed and compared to the American College of Cardiology target of 90 minutes. After just over one year of gradually improving results, 100% compliance was achieved. From that time on, this was achieved during the period under consideration in 97% of cases.

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.

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.

Background

The benefit of intravenous thrombolytic therapy in acute brain ischemia is strongly time dependent.

Methods

The Get with the Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) database was analyzed to characterize ischemic stroke patients arriving to hospital Emergency Departments (EDs) within 60 minutes of last known well time from 4/1/2003-12/30/2007.

Results

During the 4.75 year study period, among 253,148 ischemic stroke patients arriving directly by ambulance or private vehicle to 905 hospital EDs, 106,924 (42.2%) had documented exact last known well times. Onset to door time was ≤ 60 minutes in 30,220 (28.3%), 61-180 minutes in 33,858 (31.7%), and >180 minutes in 42,846 (40.1%). Features most strongly distinguishing ≤ 60, 61-180, and > 180 minutes arriving patients were: greater stroke severity (median NIHSS 8.0 vs 6.0 vs 4.0, p <.0001) and more frequent arrival by ambulance (79.0%. vs 72.2% vs 55.0%, p <.0001). Compared with 61-180 minute arrivers, golden hour patients received IV thrombolytic therapy more frequently (27.1% vs 12.9%, OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.41-2.61, p <.0001), but door to needle time (DTN) was longer (mean 90.6 vs 76.7 minutes, p <.0001). DTN ≤ 60 minutes was achieved in 18.3% of golden hour patients.

Conclusions

At GWTG-Stroke hospital EDs, more than one quarter of patients with documented onset time, and at least one eighth of all ischemic stroke patients, arrive within 1 hour of onset, where they receive thrombolytic therapy more frequently but more slowly than late arrivers. These findings support public health initiates to increase early presentation and shorten door to needle times in patients arriving within the “golden hour.”

Background: The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease established clear standards for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction in March 2000. This study evaluates an emergency department's thrombolysis performance in light of these standards.

Setting: Inner city teaching hospital emergency department.

Methods: The data were prospectively collected using a formal clinical pathway for all patients receiving thrombolysis in the emergency department between February 2000 and January 2001. Cases were reviewed at monthly multidisciplinary audit meetings. Regular feedback complemented routine teaching for both nursing and medical staff.

Results: 127 patients were thrombolysed, of whom 92 (72%) were immediately eligible. Some 77% of these had a door to needle time of less than 30 minutes and 38% less than 20 minutes. Twenty per cent of patients had a call to door time of less than 30 minutes. Some 84% of patients managed by the emergency department team had a door to needle time of less than 30 minutes compared with 53% of those patients seen by duty physicians.

Conclusions: The thrombolysis target set by the National Service Framework for April 2002 is achievable. The target set for April 2003 remains an ambitious goal. Overall call to needle times are undermined by call to door times. Emergency department teams may be more efficient than duty physicians in processing patients needing thrombolysis.

Thrombolytic therapy reduces mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), giving maximal benefit with early treatment. In the UK delayed presentation after AMI may reduce the advantages of thrombolysis. To assess this, 103 patients presenting with AMI to two London Hospitals were interviewed to determine the length and cause of delay from onset of chest pain to arrival at hospital. Forty-nine per cent of patients took longer than 2 h to arrive at hospital, and 21% took longer than 4 h. Patients who contacted their general practitioner (GP) had a significantly prolonged time delay (160 mins; 65-730: median; range) compared to those who went directly to hospital by ambulance (82 mins; 15-395; P < 0.0005), or on their own (90 min; 15-855; P < 0.005). Patients calling their GP took a similar duration to decide to seek help [decision time (30 min versus 25 mins) P = NS], but significantly longer to reach hospital once the decision was made (110 min versus 56 min; P < 0.0001), than those proceeding directly to hospital. Believing the pain was cardiac in origin significantly shortened decision time (15 min versus 45 min; P < 0.05), as did knowledge of the existence of thrombolysis (15 min versus 50 min; P < 0.05) and lack of prior cardiac symptoms (18 min versus 42 min; P < 0.05). Only 14% were aware of thrombolysis. Rank correlation confirmed that decision and total delay time were age independent. Delays of this magnitude may compromise the efficiency of thrombolysis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Background

Registry studies have suggested improvements in door-to-balloon times, but a national assessment of the trends in door-to-balloon times is lacking. Moreover, we do not know if improvements in door-to-balloon times were shared equally among patient and hospital groups.

Methods and Results

This analysis includes all patients reported by hospitals to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for inclusion in the time to percutaneous coronary intervention acute myocardial infarction-8 (AMI-8) inpatient measure from January 1, 2005 through September 30, 2010. For each calendar year, we summarized the characteristics of patients reported for the measure including the number and percentage in each group as well as the median time to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and the percentage with time to primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 75 minutes and within 90 minutes. Door-to-balloon time declined from a median of 96 minutes in the year ending December 31, 2005 to a median of 64 minutes in the three quarters ending September 30, 2010. There were corresponding increases in the percentage of patients who had times <90 minutes (44.2% to 91.4%) and <75 minutes (27.3% to 70.4%). The declines in median times were greatest among groups that had the highest median times during the first period: Patients >75 years of age (median decline 38 minutes); women (35 minutes); and African Americans (42 minutes).

Conclusion

National progress has been achieved in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Background and purpose

The advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute stroke increase the importance of providing these patients with timely medical attention. This study was designed to assess time delays in neurological evaluation and neuroimaging and to determine whether they are important obstacles to performing thrombolytic therapy.

Methods

Data were obtained between May 2004 and September 2006 from 195 consecutive patients who were admitted to Cheju National University Hospital for acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms. We determined the time of the onset of symptoms, arrival time at the emergency department (ED), and times of neurology notification, neurology evaluation, and neuroimaging using interviews and by reviewing the medical record.

Results

Short onset-to-door time, performing computed tomography rather than magnetic resonance imaging, presence of aphasia or motor weakness, and severe initial neurological deficit were significantly associated with reduced in-hospital delays. Seventeen (20%) of the 85 patients who arrived within 3 hours of the onset of symptoms received intravenous thrombolysis. Mild neurological deficit, rapidly improving symptoms, and insufficient time to workup were the main causes of the nonreceipt of thrombolytic therapy in these patients. Only one patient did not receive thrombolytic therapy due to delay in neurology consultation.

Conclusions

Whilst in-hospital delays were not major obstacles to performing thrombolytic therapy in this study, there is still a high probability of missing patients with mild-to-moderate stroke symptoms. More effective in-hospital organization is required for the prompt evaluation and treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke.

ST elevation on a 12 lead ECG is one of the cardinal features of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), yet it also occurs with other clinical conditions such as spontaneous pneumothorax. Three cases are presented, all of whom had chest pain and ST elevation. All had pneumothoraces yet only one had an AMI. Thrombolysis was administered to one patient. With the current pressure on "door‐to‐needle" times, emergency physicians should take care to differentiate between these entities.