Is prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction warranted in the urban setting? The case against

This paper forms the second part of the debate on prehospital thrombolysis (PHT). It is argued that large scale studies have failed to show a benefit for PHT, even when the time saved over conventional treatment was considerably greater than would be the case in the UK urban setting. In practice, a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 2002-09, Vol.19 (5), p.444-447
Main Authors: Stephenson, D T, Wardrope, J W, Goodacre, S W
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
acute myocardial infarction
AMI
Care and treatment
Cost control
Emergency Medical Services
England
Evaluation
Funding
Heart attack
Heart attacks
Humans
Management
Mortality
Myocardial Infarction - drug therapy
Pain
Paramedics
Personal View
PHT
Population
prehospital thrombolysis
Studies
thrombolysis
Thrombolytic Therapy
Time
Urban health
Urban Health Services
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper forms the second part of the debate on prehospital thrombolysis (PHT). It is argued that large scale studies have failed to show a benefit for PHT, even when the time saved over conventional treatment was considerably greater than would be the case in the UK urban setting. In practice, a relatively small proportion of the total population receiving thrombolysis would receive PHT. Other strategies to reduce time to thrombolysis can benefit all patients and are likely to be more cost effective and safer.
ISSN:1472-0205
1472-0213
DOI:10.1136/emj.19.5.444