Limited benefits of ambulance telemetry in delivering early thrombolysis: a randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the potential of a continuous telemetry system linking rural ambulances to a coronary care unit to reduce call to thrombolysis times.


METHODS
This prospective randomised controlled trial recruited patients using the 999 ambulance service in a rural area of the UK with signs or symptoms of coronary heart disease. Subjects were assigned to receive either standard paramedic treatment or transmission of 12 lead ECG, blood pressure, pulse oximetry, and relevant medical history to a general hospital coronary care unit. Cardiology senior house officers then determined each patient's suitability for pre-hospital thrombolysis time, and transmitted this decision back to the ambulance. This was documented as the potential thrombolysis, although no thrombolytic agents were administered by paramedics. The between groups difference in time to potential thrombolysis (intervention group) and actual thrombolysis (controls) was compared. The proportion of intervention group subjects ultimately receiving thrombolysis in hospital was compared with that recommended for pre-hospital thrombolysis.


RESULTS
The potential reduction in call to treatment time for telemetry patients recommended for pre-hospital thrombolysis was 55 minutes (p = 0.022). Following hospital admission,21/213 of the telemetry patients were thrombolysed (10%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6% to 15%). Of these patients, 3/21 received a recommendation for thrombolysis in the ambulance (14%, 95% CI 3.1% to 36.3%). The sensitivity and specificity of the telemetry system in detecting patients requiring thrombolysis was 13.6 and 99.5% respectively. Errors were made in the pre-hospital treatment recommendations for two patients.


CONCLUSIONS
Continuous telemetry systems may significantly reduce call to treatment times for patients recommended for pre-hospital thrombolysis in a rural setting. However, this benefit must be balanced against the very small proportion of eligible patients identified as suitable for pre-hospital thrombolysis. This limitation may be due to communications problems, the criteria used to identify eligible patients, or the seniority of physicians tasked with making treatment decisions.
Woollard
M
M
Faculty of Pre-hospital Care Research Unit, Department of Academic Emergency Medicine, Academic Centre, The James Cook University Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesbrough TS4 3BW, UK. malcolm.woollard@ukgateway.net
Pitt
K
K
Hayward
A J
AJ
Taylor
N C
NC
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000552:Ambulances; D003325:Coronary Care Units / Q000458:organization & administration; D004562:Electrocardiography / Q000379:methods; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000188:drug therapy*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019114:Remote Consultation / Q000379:methods*; D019035:Rural Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013686:Telemetry / Q000379:methods*; D015912:Thrombolytic Therapy / Q000379:methods*
Br Med J. 1980 Nov 15;281(6251):1336-8
7437789
BMJ. 2003 Jul 5;327(7405):27-8
12842952
BMJ. 2003 Jul 5;327(7405):22-6
12842951
Emerg Med J. 2002 May;19(3):260-3
11971847
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990 Apr;15(5):925-31
2312978
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Nov 1;30(5):1181-6
9350912
Lancet. 1996 Sep 21;348(9030):771-5
8813982
Postgrad Med J. 1995 Sep;71(839):534-41
7479465
Am J Cardiol. 1992 Apr 15;69(12):991-6
1561998
J Electrocardiol. 1992;24 Suppl:8-13
1552273
Am Heart J. 1992 Apr;123(4 Pt 1):835-40
1549989
Am Heart J. 1991 Jan;121(1 Pt 1):1-11
1898678
Am J Cardiol. 1990 Oct 1;66(10):786-91
2220573