ONE-YEAR PROSPECTIVE-STUDY OF CASES OF SUSPECTED ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION MANAGED BY URBAN AND RURAL GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS

Background. The role of the general practitioner in the management of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction is important and s pecific. it has been recommended that eligible patients should receive thrombolysis within 90 minutes of alerting medical or ambulance servi ces. The administration of prehospital thrombolysis by general practit ioners is controversial. Most research into the management of acute my ocardial infarction has been hospital based and has not explored diffe rences between urban and rural general practice. Aim. In 1993-94 a one -year prospective survey was undertaken of samples of urban and rural general practitioners to examine their management of cases of suspecte d acute myocardial infarction and to determine whether differences in management existed between the two settings. Method. General practitio ners were recruited through the continuing medical education faculty n etwork of the Irish College of General Practitioners. Participating ge neral practitioners completed a report form for cases of suspected acu te myocardial infarction. Six-week follow-up forms were also completed . Results. A total of 113 general practitioners (54 urban and 59 rural ) participated in the study. A total of 57 general practitioners contr ibuted 195 cases, 49 from urban and 146 from rural areas. The mean num ber of cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction per participant for urban and rural doctors was 0.9 and 2.5, respectively. Median dela y time from onset of symptoms to contacting the general practitioner w as 90 minutes for both urban and rural patients. Median general practi tioner response times for urban and rural doctors were 10 and 15 minut es, respectively. Median estimated journey times from location of the patient to hospital for urban and rural patients were 10 and 40 minute s, respectively (P<0.001). Rural doctors were more likely, in comparis on with their urban counterparts, to administer aspirin (given to 40% of patients versus 16%, P<0.01) but less likely to administer intraven ous morphine (26% versus 41%, P<0.05). Twenty one patients (11%) died at the scene; follow-up forms were received for 94% of the remaining p atients. Of these 163 patients, 99% were admitted to hospital; 49% wer e discharged with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and a fur ther 25% had final diagnoses consistent with acute coronary heart dise ase. Conclusion. This study suggests that the management of patients w ith suspected acute myocardial infarction differs in urban and rural s ettings. Delay times suggest that in order to meet current guidelines, prehospital thrombolysis must become a reality in rural areas.