Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:54:20.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prehospital recognition of acute myocardial infarction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Howie Bright  and
Jeff Pocock
Howie Bright*
Affiliation:
Chilliwack General Hospital, and Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Local Medical Coordinator, BC Ambulance Service, Chilliwack, BC
Jeff Pocock
Affiliation:
Chilliwack General Hospital, and Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
*
9123 Mary St., Chilliwack BC V2P 4H7; 604 795–9161, fax 604 795–9937, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

Paramedics often provide advance notice of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) so that emergency department (ED) staff can prepare for early aggressive management and expeditious thrombolysis, but the validity of this practice is unclear. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of prehospital AMI diagnosis by Paramedic Level III (ALS) attendants.

Methods:

ALS paramedics serving a busy community hospital were instructed regarding the clinical diagnosis of chest pain and the value of early thrombolysis. For all patients transported with a chief complaint of chest pain, they were asked to record an explicit diagnosis of “probable AMI” or “chest pain, other.” Prehospital diagnoses were subsequently compared to ED diagnoses. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the prehospital diagnosis for AMI were determined.

Results:

During the 5-year study period, 1305 patients were studied. Based on clinical features alone, ALS paramedics were 77.8% sensitive and 82.2% specific for the diagnosis of AMI.

Conclusion:

ALS paramedics can accurately identify patients likely to benefit from early aggressive AMI management. These data have implications with respect to prehospital triage of chest pain patients, “early notification” protocols and future prehospital thrombolytic strategies.

Keywords

acute myocardial infarctionparamedics, Level IIIparamedics, Level IIdiagnosis, prehospital
Type
Brief Report • Bref compte-rendu
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , May 2002 , pp. 212 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2002

References

1.Kudenchuk, PJ, Maynard, C, Cobb, LA, Wirkus, M, Martin, JS, Kennedy, JW, et al. Utility of the prehospital electrocardiogram in diagnosing acute coronary syndromes: the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention (MITI) Project. J Am Col Card 1998;32:17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Millar-Craig, MW, Joy, AV, Adamowicz, M, Furber, R, Thomas, B.Reduction in treatment delay by paramedic ECG diagnosis of myocardial infarction with direct CCU admission. Heart 1997;78:456–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Banerjee, S.Fast-tracking of myocardial infarction by paramedics. J Royal Col Phys London 1998;32:36–8.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Morrison, LJ, Verbeek, PR, McDonald, AC, Sawadsky, BV, Cook, DJ.Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2000;283:2686–93.Google Scholar
5.Cannon, CP, Sayah, AJ, Walls, R.ER TIMI-19: Testing the reality of prehospital thrombolysis. JEM 2000;19:21S–5S.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Myers, R.Prehospital management of acute myocardial infarction: electrocardiogram acquisition and interpretation, and thrombolysis by prehospital care providers. Can J Cardiol 1998;14:1231–40.Google Scholar