Objective. Early restoration of coronary perfusion by thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention is the main modality of treatment to salvage the ischemic myocardium. The earlier the procedure is completed, the greater the benefit is in saving myocardium and restoring its functions. The aim of the study is to compare the door-to-needle time (DNT) in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the period prior to December 2008 when the site of thrombolysis was in coronary care unit (CCU) and the period after that when the site was shifted to emergency department (ED). Methods. A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted at Al Khor Hospital, Qatar, in patients with acute STEMI who underwent thrombolysis at CCU and ED from April 2005 until December 2011, to compare the DNT, duration of hospitalization, and mortality. Results. A total of 211 patients with acute STEMI were eligible for thrombolysis; 58 patients were thrombolysed in the CCU and 153 in ED. The median DNT was reduced from 33.5 minutes in the CCU to 17 minutes in the ED representing a reduction of more than 50% with a P value of < 0.0001. Conclusion. The transfer of the thrombolysis site from CCU to the ED was associated with a dramatic and significant reduction in median door-to-needle time by more than half. 1. Introduction Acute reperfusion therapy performed either with thrombolytic therapy or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the mainstay of treatment for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The benefit of the perfusion is restoring coronary flow which is time-dependent; the earlier the reperfusion is established, the greater the benefit is in saving the myocardium [1–3]. Randomized clinical trials have shown that early reperfusion therapy reduces the overall 30-day mortality by 17–25%, with increasing benefit as the time from onset of pain to the initiation of thrombolytic therapy is reduced [4–6]. Since symptoms-to-door time (SDT) is beyond the control of the medical team in the hospital, the focus is stressed on decreasing the time from the first medical contact to reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Hence, the importance of door-to-needle time (DNT) for thrombolytic therapy and door-to-balloon time for PCI has emerged. These interventions occur within the hospital and can be controlled with proper training of the medical and nursing staff and by applying international practice guidelines. DNT is the time taken from patient’s arrival to a medical facility to the time when thrombolytic therapy is
References
[1]
R. L. McNamara, J. Herrin, Y. Wang et al., “Impact of delay in door-to-needle time on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation mocardial infarction,” The American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 1227–1232, 2007.
[2]
J. G. Jollis, R. H. Mehta, M. L. Roettig, P. B. Berger, J. D. Babb, and C. B. Granger, “Reperfusion of acute myocardial infarction in North Carolina emergency departments (RACE): study design,” American Heart Journal, vol. 152, no. 5, pp. 851.e1–851.e11, 2006.
[3]
Y. T. Yaylali, “Door-to-needle times in acute myocardial infarction,” Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 122–126, 2010.
[4]
C. T. Hourigan, D. Mountain, P. E. Langton et al., “Changing the site of delivery of thrombolytic treatment for acute myocardial infarction from the coronary care unit to the emergency department greatly reduces door to needle time,” Heart, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 157–163, 2000.
[5]
M. J. Schull, M. Vermeulen, G. Slaughter, L. Morrison, and P. Daly, “Emergency department crowding and thrombolysis delays in acute myocardial infarction,” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 577–585, 2004.
[6]
F. van de Werf, J. Bax, A. Betriu et al., “Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation,” European Heart Journal, vol. 29, no. 23, pp. 2909–2945, 2008.
[7]
F. A. Masoudi, R. O. Bonow, R. G. Brindis et al., “ACC/AHA 2008 statement on performance measurement and reperfusion therapy: a report of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures (Work group to address the challenges of performance measurement and reperfusion therapy),” Circulation, vol. 118, no. 24, pp. 2649–2661, 2008.
[8]
R. L. McNamara, J. Herrin, E. H. Bradley et al., “Hospital improvement in time to reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction, 1999 to 2002,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 45–51, 2006.
[9]
P. Wilmshurst, A. Purchase, C. Webb, C. Jowett, and T. Quinn, “Improving door to needle times with nurse initiated thrombolysis,” Heart, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 262–266, 2000.
[10]
R. C. Maharaj, H. Geduld, and L. A. Wallis, “Door-to-needle time for administration of fibrinolytics in acute myocardial infarction in Cape Town,” South African Medical Journal, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 241–244, 2012.
[11]
P. Panduranga, I. Al-Zakwani, K. Sulaiman, et al., “Clinical profile and mortality of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving thrombolytic therapy in the Middle East,” Heart Views, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 35–41, 2012.
[12]
I. Al-Zakwani, M. Zubaid, A. Al-Riyami et al., “Primary coronary intervention versus thrombolytic therapy in myocardial infarction patients in the Middle East,” International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 445–451, 2012.
[13]
A. A. Abba, B. Wani A., R. A. Rahmatullah, M. Z. Khalil, A. M. Kumo, and M. A. Ghonaim, “Door to needle time in administering thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction,” Saudi Medical Journal, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 361–364, 2003.
[14]
A. R. Corfield, C. A. Graham, J. N. Adams, I. Booth, and A. C. McGuffie, “Emergency department thrombolysis improves door to needle times,” Emergency Medicine Journal, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 676–680, 2004.
[15]
P. J. Zed, R. B. Abu-Laban, T. M. Cadieu, R. A. Purssell, and L. Filiatrault, “Fibrinolytic administration for acute myocardial infarction in a tertiary ED: factors associated with an increased door-to-needle time,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 192–196, 2004.
[16]
E. M. Antman, D. T. Anbe, P. W. Armstrong et al., “ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task force on practice guidelines,” Circulation, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 588–636, 2004.
[17]
P. Appleby, C. Baigent, R. Collins et al., “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 patients,” The Lancet, vol. 343, no. 8893, pp. 311–322, 1994.
[18]
E. Raik, “Thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction: standards versus clinical indicators (letter),” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 169, no. 1, p. 59, 1998.
[19]
J. M. Rawles, “Quantification of the benefit of earlier thrombolytic therapy: five- year results of the Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial (GREAT),” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1181–1186, 1997.
[20]
S. Coccolini, G. Berti, S. Bosi, M. Pretolani, and G. Tumiotto, “Prehospital thrombolysis in rural emergency room and subsequent transport to a coronary care unit: ravenna myocardial infarction (RaMI) trial,” International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 49, pp. S47–S58, 1995.
[21]
E. Boersma, A. C. P. Maas, J. W. Deckers, and M. L. Simoons, “Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour,” The Lancet, vol. 348, no. 9030, pp. 771–775, 1996.
[22]
W. D. Weaver, M. Cerqueira, A. P. Hallstrom et al., “Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy: the myocardial infarction triage and intervention trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 270, no. 10, pp. 1211–1216, 1993.
[23]
Y. Fu, S. Goodman, W.-C. Chang, F. van de Werf, C. B. Granger, and P. W. Armstrong, “Time to treatment influences the impact of ST-segment resolution on one-year prognosis: insights from the Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic (ASSENT-2) trial,” Circulation, vol. 104, no. 22, pp. 2653–2659, 2001.
