PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Prehospital electrocardiogram (PHECG) shortens door-to-balloon time in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. However, it may increase the prehospital service time, thus offsetting the benefits gained. The performance of PHECG could be influenced by the proficiency of the emergency medical technicians (EMTs).
UNASSIGNED: To investigate whether there are differences in the performance of PHECG between EMT-II and EMT-paramedics (EMT-P).
UNASSIGNED: This prospectively designed, retrospectively analyzed study of PHECG was conducted in Taipei from February 2019 to April 2021. Comparisons were made between EMT-II and EMT-P teams. The primary outcomes were the acceptance of PHECG suggestions and prehospital service time. The secondary outcomes were gender disparities in the primary outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2,991 patients were included, of whom 2,617 received PHECG. For the primary outcomes, the acceptance of PHECG was higher in those approached by EMT-P (99.6% vs. 71.5%, p < 0.001). The scene time and scene-to-hospital time showed no significant differences. For gender disparities, the acceptance of PHECG in female patients was significantly lower in those approached by EMT-II (59.3% vs. 99.2%, p < 0.001). The scene time and scene-to-hospital time were generally longer in the female patients, especially in the younger and middle age groups. Compared to EMT-P, both were significantly longer in the female patients approached by EMT-II.
UNASSIGNED: The acceptance of PHECG was lower in those approached by EMT-II, especially in females. Although there were generally no significant differences between EMT-II and EMT-P, the scene time and scene-to-hospital time were significantly longer in female patients, especially in those aged < 75 years approached by EMT-II.
UNASSIGNED: To investigate whether there are differences in the performance of PHECG between EMT-II and EMT-paramedics (EMT-P).
UNASSIGNED: This prospectively designed, retrospectively analyzed study of PHECG was conducted in Taipei from February 2019 to April 2021. Comparisons were made between EMT-II and EMT-P teams. The primary outcomes were the acceptance of PHECG suggestions and prehospital service time. The secondary outcomes were gender disparities in the primary outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2,991 patients were included, of whom 2,617 received PHECG. For the primary outcomes, the acceptance of PHECG was higher in those approached by EMT-P (99.6% vs. 71.5%, p < 0.001). The scene time and scene-to-hospital time showed no significant differences. For gender disparities, the acceptance of PHECG in female patients was significantly lower in those approached by EMT-II (59.3% vs. 99.2%, p < 0.001). The scene time and scene-to-hospital time were generally longer in the female patients, especially in the younger and middle age groups. Compared to EMT-P, both were significantly longer in the female patients approached by EMT-II.
UNASSIGNED: The acceptance of PHECG was lower in those approached by EMT-II, especially in females. Although there were generally no significant differences between EMT-II and EMT-P, the scene time and scene-to-hospital time were significantly longer in female patients, especially in those aged < 75 years approached by EMT-II.
摘要：
■院前心电图（PHECG）缩短了ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的门至球囊时间。然而,它可能会增加院前服务时间，从而抵消了获得的好处。PHECG的性能可能会受到急诊医疗技术人员（EMT）的熟练程度的影响。
■调查EMT-II和EMT-护理人员（EMT-P）之间的PHECG性能是否存在差异。
■这是前瞻性设计的，PHECG回顾性分析研究于2019年2月至2021年4月在台北进行.在EMT-II和EMT-P团队之间进行了比较。主要结果是接受PHECG建议和院前服务时间。次要结果是主要结果中的性别差异。
■共纳入2,991名患者，其中2,617人接受了PHECG。对于主要结果，在EMT-P接近的人群中，PHECG的接受度更高(99.6%vs.71.5%,p<0.001)。现场时间和现场到医院的时间没有显着差异。关于性别差异，EMT-II治疗的女性患者对PHECG的接受度明显较低(59.3%vs.99.2%,p<0.001)。女性患者的现场时间和现场到医院的时间普遍较长，尤其是年轻和中年群体。与EMT-P相比,在接受EMT-II治疗的女性患者中,两者均显著延长.
■在EMT-II接近的人群中，PHECG的接受度较低，尤其是女性。尽管EMT-II和EMT-P之间通常没有显着差异，女性患者的现场时间和现场到医院的时间明显更长，特别是在EMT-II接触的年龄<75岁的人群中。
■调查EMT-II和EMT-护理人员（EMT-P）之间的PHECG性能是否存在差异。
■这是前瞻性设计的，PHECG回顾性分析研究于2019年2月至2021年4月在台北进行.在EMT-II和EMT-P团队之间进行了比较。主要结果是接受PHECG建议和院前服务时间。次要结果是主要结果中的性别差异。
■共纳入2,991名患者，其中2,617人接受了PHECG。对于主要结果，在EMT-P接近的人群中，PHECG的接受度更高(99.6%vs.71.5%,p<0.001)。现场时间和现场到医院的时间没有显着差异。关于性别差异，EMT-II治疗的女性患者对PHECG的接受度明显较低(59.3%vs.99.2%,p<0.001)。女性患者的现场时间和现场到医院的时间普遍较长，尤其是年轻和中年群体。与EMT-P相比,在接受EMT-II治疗的女性患者中,两者均显著延长.
■在EMT-II接近的人群中，PHECG的接受度较低，尤其是女性。尽管EMT-II和EMT-P之间通常没有显着差异，女性患者的现场时间和现场到医院的时间明显更长，特别是在EMT-II接触的年龄<75岁的人群中。
