Diffusion of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction from 1981 to 2000 in England: Trend analysis and comparison with need

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 531-536

  Packer, Claire ^a   Stevens, Andrew ^a   Cook, Alison ^a   Raftery, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Diffusion of innovation; Health services need and demand; Myocardial infarction; Thrombolytic therapy

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL LABORATORIES; COST EFFECTIVENESS; DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH RISKS; HOSPITALS; PATIENT MONITORING; PUBLIC POLICY;

CLINICAL PRACTISE; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; THROMBOLYSIS;

DISEASES;

ALTEPLASE; ANISTREPLASE; FIBRINOLYTIC AGENT; RETEPLASE; STREPTOKINASE; TENECTEPLASE;

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG USE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FIBRINOLYTIC THERAPY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; REVIEW; TREATMENT CONTRAINDICATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 8544221179     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462304001461     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomised control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA. 1992;268:240-248.
2. Birkhead J. Where are we today? Early results from MINAP, the national audit of myocardial infarction project. Heart. 2003;89(Suppl II):ii13-ii15.
3. Birkhead JS on behalf of the Myocardial Infraction Audit Group. Thrombolytic treatment for myocardial infarction: An examination of practice in 39 UK hospitals. Heart. 1997;78:28-33.
4. British Heart Foundation Working Group. Role of the general practitioner in managing patients with myocardial infarction: Impact of thrombolysis. BMJ. 1989;299:555-557.
5. British National Formulary. British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; 2002.
6. Brown N, Young T, Gray D, Skene AM, Hampton JR. Inpatient deaths from acute myocardial infarction, 1982-92: Analysis of data in the Nottingham heart attack register. BMJ. 1997;315:159-164.
7. Brown N, Melville M, Gray D, et al. Relevance of clinical trial results in myocardial infarction to medical practice: Comparison of four year outcome in participants of a thrombolytic trial, patients receiving routine thrombolysis, and those deemed ineligible for thrombolysis. Heart. 1999;81:598-602.
8. De Bono DP, Hopkins A. The management of acute myocardial infarction: Guidelines and audit standards. Report of a workshop of the Joint Audit Committee of the British Cardiac Society and the Royal College of Physicians. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994;28:312-317.
9. Department of Health and Social Security Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Hospital in-patient enquiry: In-patient and day case trends 1979-1985. England: Series MB4 No. 29. 1986.
10. Department of Health. National service framework for coronary heart disease. London: Department of Health; 2000.
11. el Gaylani N, Weston CF, Griffith K, et al. Acute myocardial infarction: Are there missed opportunities for reperfusion? Coron Artery Dis. 1998;9:753-758.
12. European Secondary Prevention Study Group. Translation of clinical trials into practice: A European population-based study on the use of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1996;347:1203-1207.
13. Farnsworth TA. Varying thrombolytic administration rates in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;47:305-307.
14. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: Collaborative overview or early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet. 1994;343:311-322.
15. Hannaford P, Kay CR, Ferry S. Agism as explanation for sexism in provision of thrombolysis. BMJ. 1994;309:573.
16. Hendra TJ, Marshall AJ. Increased prescription of thrombolytic treatment to elderly patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction associated with audit. BMJ. 1992;304:423-425.
17. Ketley D, Woods K. Impact of clinical trials on clinical practice: Example of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1993;342:891-94.
18. Ketley D. Beyond clinical trials:Translation of evidence into practice in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. PhD thesis. University of Leicester; 1996.
19. Lawson-Matthew P, Wilson AT, Woodmansey PA, Channer KS. Thrombolysis and myocardial infarction. Letter. Lancet. 2003;341:1096.
20. Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project Team. Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP): Trial study report May-September 2000. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2001.
21. Norris RM, Roy S, Dixon G. What proportion of patients with acute myocardial infarction should receive thrombolytic therapy? Br Heart J. 1994;71:40.
22. Pell ACH, Miller HC, Robertson CE, Fox KAA. Effect of 'fast track' admission for acute myocardial infarction on delay to thrombolysis. BMJ. 1992;304:83-87.
23. Secretary of State for Health. The Health of the Nation: A strategy for health in England. London: HMSO; 1992.
24. Timmis AD. Data on eligibility for thrombolytic treatment cannot be generalized. Letter. BMJ. 1996;313:941.
25. Woodmansey PA, Caldicott LD, Channer KS. Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: An audit of practice. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1993;27:40-44.
26. Yusef S, Collins R, Peto R, et al. Intravenous and intracoronary fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: Overview of results on mortality, reinfarction and side-effects from 33 randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 1985;6:556-585.