Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility and Timing of Prehospital Administration of Reteplase in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

  • Published:
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: In myocardial infarction patients undergoing thrombolysis, treatment delays negatively impact outcomes. This pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility and timing of field administration of intravenous double bolus reteplase in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Methods: Sixty three patients with symptoms and EKG changes consistent with acute myocardial infarction of less than six hours duration received the first bolus of reteplase before arriving at the emergency department. A second bolus of reteplase was given in the emergency department. Subsequent resolution of ST-segment elevation was measured. Mean time from symptom onset to paramedic dispatch, and paramedic arrivals to first bolus of reteplase were measured. The mean time from the first bolus of reteplase to heparin bolus in an emergency department was also measured. All patients with evidence of ST-elevation and suspected acute myocardial infarction gave consent for the thrombolytic therapy. There were no refusals of therapy among those candidates eligible for thrombolysis. Results: The mean times from the first bolus of reteplase to heparin bolus in the emergency department was substantially longer than the in-field times. Resolution of ST-segment elevation was recorded in 52 of the 63 patients and the times of resolution ranged from five minutes after the first bolus dose to 190 minutes after the second bolus of reteplase. Resolution of ST-segment elevation and relief of pain occurred almost simultaneously. Conclusions: These results demonstrated that in-field administration of thrombolytic therapy is a viable option to reduce the delay from symptom onset to initiation of thrombolysis. They demonstrated that satisfactory resolution of ST-segment elevation can be recorded in the field. The reduction in mortality observed in this study is comparable to previously published studies on inpatients.

Abbreviated Abstract. This open-label pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility and timing of field administration of intravenous double-bolus reteplase and to measure subsequent resolution of ST elevation in 63 patients with symptoms and ECG changes consistent with acute myocardial infarction for less than 6 hours. These results demonstrated that in-field administration of thrombolytic therapy is a viable option to reduce the delay from symptom onset to initiation of thrombolytic therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Braunwald E. The open-artery theory is alive and well-again. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1650–1652.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986;1:397–402.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;329:673–682.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zeymer U, Tebbe U, vonEssen R, Haarmann W, Neuhaus KL. Influence of time to treatment on early infarct-related artery patency after different thrombolytic regimens. ALKK-Study Group. Am Heart J 1999;137:34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Weaver WD, Cerqueira M, Hallstrom AP, et al. Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial. JAMA 1993;270:1211–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Smalling R. Molecular biology of plasminogen activators: what are the clinical implications of drug design? Am J Cardiol 1996;78(Suppl 12A):2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO III) Investigators. A comparison of reteplase with alteplase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1118–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Smalling R, Bode C, Kalbfleish J, et al. More rapid, complete, and stable coronary thrombolysis with bolus administration of reteplase compared with alteplase infusion in acute myocardial infarction. RAPID Investigators. Circulation 1995;91:2725–2732.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Emergency Cardiac Care Committee and Subcommittees, American Heart Association. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care. Part I. Introduction. JAMA 1992;268:2171–2183.

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Lemos JA, Antman EM, Guigliano RP, et al. ST-Segment resolution and infarct-related artery patency and flow after thrombolytic therapy. Amer J Cardiol 2000;85:299–304.

    Google Scholar 

  11. National Heart Attack Alert Program Coordinating Committee, 60 Minutes to Treatment Working Group. Emergency department: rapid identification and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldberg RJ, Gurwitz JH, Gore JM. Duration of, and temporal trends (1994- 1997) in, prehospital delay in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the second National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2141–2147.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goff DC Jr, Feldman HA, McGovern PG, et al. Prehospital delay in patients hospitalized with heart attack symptoms in the United States: the REACT trial. Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) Study Group. Am Heart J 1999;138:1046–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gonzalez ER, Jones LA, Ornato JP, Bleecker GC, Strauss MJ. Hospital delays and problems with thrombolytic administration in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy: a multicenter prospective assessment. Virginia Thrombolytic Study Group. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:1215–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rawles J. Halving of mortality at 1 year by domiciliary thrombolysis in the Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial (GREAT). J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The European Myocardial Infarction Project Group. Pre-hospital thrombolytic therapy in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;329:383–389.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Castaigne AD, Herve C, Duval-Moulin AM, et al. Prehospital use of APSAC: results of a placebo-controlled study. Am J Cardiol 1989;64:30A–33A.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schofer J, Buttner J, Geng G, et al. Prehospital thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1990;66:1429–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  19. GREAT Group. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of domiciliary thrombolysis by general practitioners: Grampian region early anistreplase trial. BMJ 1992;305:548–553.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morrison LJ, Verbeek PR, McDonald AC, Sawadsky BV, Cook DJ. Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: a metaanalysis. JAMA 2000;283:2686–2692.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brouwer MA, Martin JS, Maynard C, et al. Influence of early prehospital thrombolysis on mortality and event-free survival (the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention [MITI] Randomized Trial). MITI Project Investigators. Am J Cardiol 1996;78:497–502.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hilleman DE, Shara M. Advances in the use of thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Pharmacist 1998:HSA41–HSA54.

  23. Vorchheimer DA, Baruch L, Thompson TD, Kukin ML. North American vs Non-North American streptokinase use in GUSTO-I: impact of protocol deviation on mortality benefit of TPA.Circulation 1997;96(Suppl I):I-535.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Sayah A, et al. Should your hospital consider a prehospital thrombolysis program? Observations from ER-TIMI 19. Circulation 2001;104(17): II-726.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA

    Donald G. Rosenberg

  2. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, Miami, Florida, USA

    Donald G. Rosenberg & Esther Levin

  3. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, Miami, Florida, USA

    Ana Lausell, Allen Brown, John Gardner & Esther Perez

  4. Michigan State Thoracic Cardiovascular Institute Foundation, Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Mark Veenendaal

  5. Cardiovascular Clinic at Muskogee, Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA

    Yee S.C. Ong & Mary Gunn

Authors
  1. Donald G. Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esther Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Lausell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allen Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Esther Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark Veenendaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yee S.C. Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mary Gunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosenberg, D.G., Levin, E., Lausell, A. et al. Feasibility and Timing of Prehospital Administration of Reteplase in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Thromb Thrombolysis 13, 147–153 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020474822885

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020474822885

Search

Navigation