A comparison of emergency medical services times for stroke and myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Since stroke symptoms are often vague, and acute therapies for stroke are more recently available, it has been hypothesized that stroke patients may not be treated with the same urgency as myocardial infarction (MI) patients by emergency medical services (EMS). To examine this hypothesis, EMS transport times were examined for both stroke and MI patients who used a paramedic-level, county-based EMS system for transportation to a single hospital during 1999. METHODS: Patients were first identified by their hospital discharge diagnosis as stroke (ICD-9 430-436, n = 50) or MI (ICD-9 410, n = 55). Trip sheets with corresponding transport times were retrospectively obtained from the 911 center. A separate analysis was performed on patients identified by dispatchers with a chief complaint of stroke (n = 85) or MI (n = 372). RESULTS: Comparing stroke and MI patients identified by ICD-9 codes, mean EMS transport times in minutes did not meaningfully differ with respect to dispatch to scene arrival time (8.3 vs 8.9, p = 0.61), scene time (19.5 vs 21.4, p = 0.23), and transport time (13.7 vs 16.2, p = 0.10). Mean total call times in minutes from dispatch to hospital arrival were similar between stroke and MI patients (41.5 vs 46.4, p = 0.22). Results were similar when comparing patients identified by dispatchers with a chief complaint indicative of stroke or MI. CONCLUSION: In this single county, EMS response times were not different between stroke and MI patients. Replication in other EMS settings is needed to confirm these findings.

Optimal prehospital cardiovascular care.

Optimal prehospital cardiovascular care may improve the morbidity and mortality associated with acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) that begin in the community. Reducing the time delays from AMI symptom onset to intervention begins with maximizing effective patient education to reduce patient delay in recognizing symptoms and seeking assistance. Transportation delays can be minimized by appropriate use of 911 systems and improving technological 911 support. Patient triage to heart centers from the prehospital setting requires strict and comprehensive definition of the criteria for these centers by competent, unbiased clinical societies or governmental agencies. Prehospital 12-lead electrocardiograms and initiation of thrombolytic therapy can provide acute diagnosis and early treatment, thus facilitating faster processing and more directed in-hospital intervention. They also minimize over- and undertriage of patients to cardiac centers. Although evidence from investigational trials suggests that many of these procedures are effective, more research is required to ensure correct implementation and quality assurance at all emergency service levels.

Study design and outcomes in out-of-hospital emergency medicine research: a ten-year analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of rigorous study design and failure to follow diverse patient outcomes have been identified as critical gaps in the medical research literature. This study sought to determine whether similar gaps exist in the literature for out-of-hospital interventions. METHODS: A computerized MEDLINE search was conducted for the ten-year period 1985 through 1994 using the MeSH terms "emergency medical services," "prehospital," and "transportation of patients." Using a standard abstraction form, two investigators independently analyzed articles meeting these inclusion criteria: original research evaluating an out-of-hospital intervention and measuring a patient outcome. Study design was categorized in order of scientific rigor, moving from case series to randomized trial. Measures of outcomes were classified into the six Ds: death, disease, discomfort, disability, dissatisfaction, and debt (cost). RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was high (kappa = 0.80). For the ten-year period, 3,686 titles, 1,454 abstracts, and 373 articles were examined serially; all 285 studies meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed. Case series (44%) was the most frequently used design, while only 15% were randomized trials. The majority of the studies were retrospective (53%). A single outcome was assessed in 45% of the articles; 41% measured two outcomes, 13% three outcomes, and 1% four outcomes. Death and disease were the most common outcomes evaluated. Disability, debt, discomfort, and dissatisfaction were infrequently measured. CONCLUSION: Studies of out-of-hospital emergency medical interventions are limited in the scientific rigor of study design and the diversity of patient outcomes measured. To adequately assess the effectiveness of out-of-hospital care, efforts should be directed toward strengthening study designs and examining the full range of patient outcomes.