Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:15:34.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response to commentaries by Kildemoes and Kristiansen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2005

Christian Juhl Terkelsen
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology B, Skejby University Hospital, Brendstrupgaardsvej 100, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmarkchristian_juhl_terkelsen@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

§1.1. Recent data documents that not a “majority” but only 40% of Danish patients arrive at the hospital within 30 minutes of ambulance call (7;8). §1.2. The Dutch study confirmed that, even in areas with 13 minutes transport time to the hospital, comparable to the Danish scenery, a prehospital thrombolytic strategy reduced treatment delay by nearly 1 hour (5). §1.3. We appreciate that the authors confirm our viewpoint, that is, quoting that “the mortality reduction more than doubles up,” “if hospital delay is totally eliminated (corresponding to a delay reduction of 1 hour).” In the future, patients should be diagnosed before hospital admission and either treated before hospital admission with thrombolysis or transferred directly to interventional center for primary PCI. In both settings, the delay at the local hospital, averaging 1 hour, would be eliminated (1;8). §2.0. Kildemoes and Kristiansen may have misunderstood our arguments regarding the Boersma formula. We recommend that they read our previous viewpoint (9). We have no reason to believe that distribution of patient delay in Denmark differs significantly from other countries. Moreover, we are surprised that the case fatality estimates implemented by Kildemoes and Kristiansen differs significantly from findings in a recent Danish Health Technology Assessment and findings in previous meta-analyses (2;4;6). §3.1. For 7 years, the present group of authors have worked with telemedicine in the prehospital evaluation of patients. Our close collaborators, the ambulance operators and the company delivering telemedicine equipment, have confirmed our cost data, whereas they disagree with the cost data implemented by Kildemoes and Kristiansen. §3.2. Equipment for twelve-lead ECG acquisition is necessary when implementing prehospital diagnosis, irrespective of whether the diagnoses are established by telemedicine, by paramedics, or by physicians. §5. A 1-hour reduction in treatment delay is achievable by a prehospital diagnostic strategy, both in the setting of prehospital thrombolysis and in the setting of prehospital referral to interventional centers for primary PCI (6;8). This reduction in treatment delay should have a major impact on AMI fatality (also in Denmark; 3;6).

Type
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

To the Editor:

§1.1. Recent data documents that not a “majority” but only 40% of Danish patients arrive at the hospital within 30 minutes of ambulance call (7;8). §1.2. The Dutch study confirmed that, even in areas with 13 minutes transport time to the hospital, comparable to the Danish scenery, a prehospital thrombolytic strategy reduced treatment delay by nearly 1 hour (5). §1.3. We appreciate that the authors confirm our viewpoint, that is, quoting that “the mortality reduction more than doubles up,” “if hospital delay is totally eliminated (corresponding to a delay reduction of 1 hour).” In the future, patients should be diagnosed before hospital admission and either treated before hospital admission with thrombolysis or transferred directly to interventional center for primary PCI. In both settings, the delay at the local hospital, averaging 1 hour, would be eliminated (1;8). §2.0. Kildemoes and Kristiansen may have misunderstood our arguments regarding the Boersma formula. We recommend that they read our previous viewpoint (9). We have no reason to believe that distribution of patient delay in Denmark differs significantly from other countries. Moreover, we are surprised that the case fatality estimates implemented by Kildemoes and Kristiansen differs significantly from findings in a recent Danish Health Technology Assessment and findings in previous meta-analyses (2;4;6). §3.1. For 7 years, the present group of authors have worked with telemedicine in the prehospital evaluation of patients. Our close collaborators, the ambulance operators and the company delivering telemedicine equipment, have confirmed our cost data, whereas they disagree with the cost data implemented by Kildemoes and Kristiansen. §3.2. Equipment for twelve-lead ECG acquisition is necessary when implementing prehospital diagnosis, irrespective of whether the diagnoses are established by telemedicine, by paramedics, or by physicians. §5. A 1-hour reduction in treatment delay is achievable by a prehospital diagnostic strategy, both in the setting of prehospital thrombolysis and in the setting of prehospital referral to interventional centers for primary PCI (6;8). This reduction in treatment delay should have a major impact on AMI fatality (also in Denmark; 3;6).

References

Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. 2003; A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 349: 733742.Google Scholar
Boissel J-P. 1995; The European Myocardial Infarction Project: An assessment of pre-hospital thrombolysis. Int J Cardiol. 49(Suppl): S29S37.Google Scholar
De Luca G, Suryapranata H, Ottervanger JP, Antman EM. 2004; Time delay to treatment and mortality in primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: Every minute of delay counts. Circulation. 109: 12231225.Google Scholar
Kjølby M, et al. 2002; MTV-enheden Aarhus Universitet. Telemedicinsk præhospital diagnostik af akutte hjertepatienter—et nyt IT-baseret koncept. En medicinsk teknologivurdering. Puljeprojekter 2 (3).Google Scholar
Lamfers EJP, Schut A, Hooghoudt TEH, et al. 2003; Prehospital thrombolysis with reteplase: The Nijmegen/Rotterdam study. Am Heart J. 146: 479483.Google Scholar
Morrison LJ, Verbeek PR, McDonald AC, Sawadsky BV, Cook DJ. 2000; Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 283: 26862692.Google Scholar
Terkelsen CJ, Lassen JF, 2005; Nørgaard BL, et al. Mortality rates in patients with ST-elevation vs. non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: Observations from an unselected cohort. Eur Heart J. 26: 1826.Google Scholar
Terkelsen CJ, Lassen JF, Nørgaard BL, et al. 2005; Reduction of treatment delay in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Impact of prehospital diagnosis and direct referral to primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J. 26: 770777.Google Scholar
Terkelsen CJ, Lassen JF, Norgaard BL, et al. 2003; Are we underestimating the full potential of early thrombolytic treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction? Heart. 89: 483484.Google Scholar