1 / 13

Impact of Pre-Hospital Thrombolytic Treatment on Re-infarction Rates

This study analyzes data from the Myocardial Infarction National Audit project to compare pre-hospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for AMI cases, identifying predictors of re-infarction.

mnida
Download Presentation

Impact of Pre-Hospital Thrombolytic Treatment on Re-infarction Rates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The impact of pre-hospital thrombolytic treatment on re-infarction rates:Analysis of the Myocardial Infarction National Audit project (MINAP) Dr Simon Horne Specialist Registrar Emergency Medicine Torbay Hospital

  2. Background to the study • Pre-hospital thrombolysis allows earlier treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). • This in turn improves outcome. • Ambulance systems allow real time observation of the pre-hospital ECG in the Emergency department. • Anecdotal evidence suggested a high rate of re-infarction after pre-hospital treatment.

  3. What is re-infarction? “Ischaemic pain or other symptoms consistent with acute cardiac ischaemia …accompanied by new electrocardiographic changes (elevation or depression of the ST segment or T waves changes) in the territory of the initial event”

  4. Why re-infarction is important

  5. Study hypothesis • That pre-hospital thrombolysis has a higher rate of re-infarction than in-hospital thrombolysis.

  6. Methods • Use of the MINAP database of 35,356 patients thrombolysed in 2005-6. • Comparison of pre-hospital and in-hospital groups to identify differences in baseline characteristics and re-infarction rate. • Use of multivariate linear regression to identify factors predictive of re-infarction.

  7. Baseline characteristics

  8. Re-infarction rate by agent * † * † *p=0.001 † p=0.005

  9. Re-infarction rate by time from administration to time of arrival at hospital † p=0.001 † †

  10. Predictors of re-infarction • For Tenecteplase: • Weight OR 1.67 (95%CI 1.27-2.27) • Pre-hospital OR 1.44 (95%CI 1.21-1.71) • Previous AMI OR 1.23 (95%CI 0.99-1.25) • For Reteplase: • Previous AMI OR 2.74 (95%CI 2.02-3.72) • CRF OR 2.6 (95%CI 1.14-4.8)

  11. Why might this happen? • Chance? • A difference between the groups that we have no data about? • Anticoagulation?

  12. Limitations of the study • Use of a dataset for a specific question for which it was not designed. • No randomisation to reduce bias. • Data quality is an issue. • No direct evidence of cause, only effect. but • Complete picture for England and Wales. • Robust evidence that something about pre-hospital thrombolysis is suboptimal.

  13. Conclusions • Pre-hospital thrombolysis with Tenecteplase is associated with an increased risk of re-infarction. • Re-infarction more than doubles mortality from AMI. • As time from treatment to hospital increases, so does the rate of re-infarction. • The anticoagulation regimen is an obvious difference between the groups that might explain the results.

More Related