Thrombolysis and the general practitioner.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to A C Pell.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This study examines the issue of whether to give home or hospital care to patients with suspected myocardial infarction now that the value of thrombolytic therapy has been recognized. A questionnaire survey of 69 general practitioners showed that the majority were aware of the potential benefits of thrombolysis although few thought that these extended beyond six hours after the onset of symptoms. Most would opt for hospital care for patients under the age of 70 years, but would treat older patients with uncomplicated myocardial infarctions at home, depriving them of the opportunity to receive thrombolysis. The admission policies of general practitioners for patients with suspected myocardial infarction merit reappraisal so that thrombolysis can be considered for all patients up to 24 hours after the onset of symptoms.
Of 408 patients presenting to a coronary care unit over a six month period 237 had an acute myocardial infarction. Two-thirds presented to hospital within three hours of the onset of symptoms. The median delay between arrival in hospital and admission to the Coronary Care Unit was 60 minutes. Only a minority of patients with acute myocardial infarction were eligible to receive thrombolysis, the most common exclusion criteria being an electrocardiograph that was not diagnostic of infarction at presentation. In-hospital transfer delay has increased considerably since 1972. It did not exclude many patients from receiving thrombolysis but it caused delayed thrombolysis.