Reperfusion revisited

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The field of thrombolytic treatment for a variety of clinical conditions has progressed extremely rapidly over the past decade. Unfortunately, answers to questions of the greatest interest to practicing physicians remain ambiguous. They include the following: For which problems should thrombolytic treatment be the treatment of choice? Which patients should receive thrombolytic treatment, and which should not? Which of the available thrombolytic agents is "best" for which problem in which patient? In this situation of clinical ambiguity, our experience with thrombolysis in AMI is instructive. The problems for which thrombolytic treatment are indicated have in common the attribute that they are "time-sensitive"; that is, optimal benefit is achieved with earlier initiation of treatment. We have learned that to minimize delay, emergency physicians must proactively agree with our colleagues in cardiology, family practice, internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, etc., on issues of patient selection, drug selection, and ancillary therapy. It is too late to argue such issues once the patient with a thrombotic or embolic disorder has arrived in the emergency department. By cooperating in advance, we can ensure our patients the maximum benefit from timely administration of this potent therapy while protecting them from avoidable complications and expense from its medically inappropriate use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)92-94
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Emergency Medicine
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Reperfusion
Therapeutics
Physicians
Pulmonary Medicine
Fibrinolytic Agents
Family Practice
Internal Medicine
Cardiology
Patient Selection
Hospital Emergency Service
Emergencies
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Reperfusion revisited. / Valenzuela, Terence D.

In: Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1993, p. 92-94.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bbc161c0648c476ba3f72db62c26a2b0,
title = "Reperfusion revisited",
abstract = "The field of thrombolytic treatment for a variety of clinical conditions has progressed extremely rapidly over the past decade. Unfortunately, answers to questions of the greatest interest to practicing physicians remain ambiguous. They include the following: For which problems should thrombolytic treatment be the treatment of choice? Which patients should receive thrombolytic treatment, and which should not? Which of the available thrombolytic agents is {"}best{"} for which problem in which patient? In this situation of clinical ambiguity, our experience with thrombolysis in AMI is instructive. The problems for which thrombolytic treatment are indicated have in common the attribute that they are {"}time-sensitive{"}; that is, optimal benefit is achieved with earlier initiation of treatment. We have learned that to minimize delay, emergency physicians must proactively agree with our colleagues in cardiology, family practice, internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, etc., on issues of patient selection, drug selection, and ancillary therapy. It is too late to argue such issues once the patient with a thrombotic or embolic disorder has arrived in the emergency department. By cooperating in advance, we can ensure our patients the maximum benefit from timely administration of this potent therapy while protecting them from avoidable complications and expense from its medically inappropriate use.",
author = "Valenzuela, {Terence D}",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1016/0736-4679(93)90014-X",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "92--94",
journal = "Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0736-4679",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reperfusion revisited

AU - Valenzuela, Terence D

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - The field of thrombolytic treatment for a variety of clinical conditions has progressed extremely rapidly over the past decade. Unfortunately, answers to questions of the greatest interest to practicing physicians remain ambiguous. They include the following: For which problems should thrombolytic treatment be the treatment of choice? Which patients should receive thrombolytic treatment, and which should not? Which of the available thrombolytic agents is "best" for which problem in which patient? In this situation of clinical ambiguity, our experience with thrombolysis in AMI is instructive. The problems for which thrombolytic treatment are indicated have in common the attribute that they are "time-sensitive"; that is, optimal benefit is achieved with earlier initiation of treatment. We have learned that to minimize delay, emergency physicians must proactively agree with our colleagues in cardiology, family practice, internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, etc., on issues of patient selection, drug selection, and ancillary therapy. It is too late to argue such issues once the patient with a thrombotic or embolic disorder has arrived in the emergency department. By cooperating in advance, we can ensure our patients the maximum benefit from timely administration of this potent therapy while protecting them from avoidable complications and expense from its medically inappropriate use.

AB - The field of thrombolytic treatment for a variety of clinical conditions has progressed extremely rapidly over the past decade. Unfortunately, answers to questions of the greatest interest to practicing physicians remain ambiguous. They include the following: For which problems should thrombolytic treatment be the treatment of choice? Which patients should receive thrombolytic treatment, and which should not? Which of the available thrombolytic agents is "best" for which problem in which patient? In this situation of clinical ambiguity, our experience with thrombolysis in AMI is instructive. The problems for which thrombolytic treatment are indicated have in common the attribute that they are "time-sensitive"; that is, optimal benefit is achieved with earlier initiation of treatment. We have learned that to minimize delay, emergency physicians must proactively agree with our colleagues in cardiology, family practice, internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, etc., on issues of patient selection, drug selection, and ancillary therapy. It is too late to argue such issues once the patient with a thrombotic or embolic disorder has arrived in the emergency department. By cooperating in advance, we can ensure our patients the maximum benefit from timely administration of this potent therapy while protecting them from avoidable complications and expense from its medically inappropriate use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027457099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027457099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0736-4679(93)90014-X

DO - 10.1016/0736-4679(93)90014-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 8445192

AN - SCOPUS:0027457099

VL - 11

SP - 92

EP - 94

JO - Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0736-4679

IS - 1

ER -