Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Is prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction warranted in the urban setting? The case against
  1. D T Stephenson1,
  2. J W Wardrope2,
  3. S W Goodacre3
  1. 1Accident and Emergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  2. 2South Yorkshire Ambulance Service, UK
  3. 3Health Services Research Fellow, Medical Care Research Unit, Sheffield University, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr D T Stephenson, Accident and Emergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK;
 danieltstephenson{at}yahoo.com

Abstract

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.

  • thrombolysis
  • AMI, acute myocardial infarction
  • PHT, prehospital thrombolysis
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Primary Survey
    Jim Wardrope Pete Driscoll