Selection factors for the use of thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: a population based study of current practice in the United Kingdom. The European Secondary Prevention Study Group.
Open Access
- 1 September 1995
- Vol. 74 (3) , 224-228
- https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.74.3.224
Abstract
OBJECTIVES--To identify and rank the factors that currently limit the use of thrombolytic treatment in patients admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Weighted sampling study with retrospective data retrieval from clinical records. SETTING--All hospitals within the Trent region providing acute general medical services. PATIENTS--Random sample of 420 patients admitted during February-April 1993 who had acute myocardial infarction as the main discharge diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Treatment odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals (CI)) for the use of thrombolysis in patient groups defined by relevant clinical characteristics. RESULTS--The patient population was older and less likely to have ST segment elevation on the initial electrocardiogram than patients entered into the randomised trials of thrombolysis. Thrombolytic treatment was given to 49% of patients (SE 2.4%). After controlling for negative associations with a history of stroke (treatment odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.53)) and peptic ulcer (odds ratio 0.52 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.01)) use of thrombolysis decreased with increasing patient age. This was particularly noticeable for those aged > 74 years (odds ratio 0.17 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.51)) relative to those aged < 65 years. Thrombolysis was less likely to be used in patients with ST depression (odds ratio 0.22 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.41)) or bundle branch block (odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.44)) than in those with ST elevation on the initial electrocardiogram. Delay from symptom onset to admission was more than 12 h in 15% of patients. CONCLUSIONS--The patient population admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction differs in several respects from the samples that have been included in the trials of thrombolysis. The main factors limiting wider use of thrombolysis are diagnostic uncertainty at admission and delayed presentation. Perceived clinical contraindications to treatment are of lesser importance. There is evident reluctance to use thrombolytic treatment in older patients, who were substantially under-represented in the clinical trials.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Do women with acute myocardial infarction receive the same treatment as men?BMJ, 1994
- Guidelines for the early management of patients with myocardial infarctionBMJ, 1994
- Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patientsPublished by Elsevier ,1994
- Deciding who should have thrombolysisBMJ, 1994
- Individual risk assessment for intracranial haemorrhage during thrombolytic therapyThe Lancet, 1993
- Impact of clinical trials on clinical practice: example of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1993
- The Association between On-Site Cardiac Catheterization Facilities and the Use of Coronary Angiography after Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- Earliest electrocardiographic evidence of myocardial infarction: implications for thrombolytic treatment. The GREAT Group.BMJ, 1993
- Thrombolytic treatment for elderly patients.BMJ, 1992
- 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.BMJ, 1992