Comparison of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction in rural and urban settings

In this study, a tertiary care hospital served as a registry and information source to rural hospitals in northwestern Ohio where thrombolytic therapy had not previously been used. The study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction in the two settings. Fifty-five patients in eight rural hospitals and 36 patients in the urban tertiary care center received intravenous streptokinase. Of the 87 patients whose symptoms first occurred out of the hospital, 63 percent were treated within three hours. There were no significant differences in rates of clinically determined coronary artery recanalization (63 percent versus 69 percent for rural and tertiary hospitals, respectively), in-hospital mortality (5.4 percent versus 11 percent), bleeding complications (3.6 percent versus 5.5 percent), or time from the onset of pain to infusion of streptokinase (3.4 hours versus 2.9 hours). There were also no differences in the completeness of collection of serial coagulation data and cardiac enzyme values, or in the documentation of chest pain onset and cessation. Major differences between rural centers and the tertiary care center involved the use of serial electrocardiography (58 percent versus 89 percent, respectively), subsequent cardiac catheterization (49 percent versus 86 percent), and the timing of catheterization, when performed (30.4 days versus 4.6 days) (p less than 0.005 for all values). Thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction can be administered quickly, safely, and effectively in rural hospital settings even by physicians previously unfamiliar with this form of treatment.