Abstract-Patient delay in seeking treatment for acute coronary syndrome and stroke symptoms is the major factor limiting delivery of definitive treatment in these conditions. Despite decades of research and public education campaigns aimed at decreasing patient delay times, most patients still do not seek treatment in a timely manner. In this scientific statement, we summarize the evidence that (1) demonstrates the benefits of early treatment, (2) describes the extent of the problem of patient delay, (3) identifies the factors related to patient delay in seeking timely treatment, and (4) reveals the inadequacies of our current approaches to decreasing patient delay. Finally, we offer suggestions for clinical practice and future research. Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements Ⅲ acute coronary syndrome Ⅲ stroke Ⅲ delivery of health care D espite major advances in identifying effective treatments for heart attack and stroke, there are substantial difficulties in applying these treatments to care. The weak link in the chain of events leading to prompt and effective treatment is patient delay in seeking care. More than 50% of the 1.2 million people who suffer an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or coronary death each year in the United States die in an emergency department (ED) or before reaching a hospital within an hour of symptom onset. 1 About 700 000 individuals will have a stroke each year, 167 000 of those who have strokes will die, and more will suffer a major disability. 1 Of the stroke deaths that occur each year, almost half occur before the patient reaches the hospital. 2 Many of these deaths and significant disability could be prevented if patients received earlier treatment. 1,3 Although the benefits of early treatment of heart attack and stroke are clear, only a minority of eligible patients receive optimally timed treatment for their symptoms because of delay in seeking care. The development and use of appropriate interventions to decrease treatment-seeking delay by patients could produce important gains in reducing death and disability from heart attack and stroke. Unfortunately, efforts to date to develop effective interventions have met with disappointing results. 4 -6 Accordingly, the purpose of this statement is to summarize the evidence that demonstrates the benefits of early treatment, 1,2 describes the extent of the problem of patient delay, 3 identifies the factors related to patient delay in seeking timely treatment, and reveals the inadequacies of our current approaches to decreasing patient delay. 4 Finally, we offer suggestions for clinical practice and future research. Benefits of Early TreatmentThe burden of cardiovascular disease is growing worldwide. Ischemic heart disease is the No. 1 cause of death in the The findings and conclusions in this scientific statement are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.The American Heart Association makes every effort to av...

Background and Purpose-Patient delays in seeking treatment for stroke and delays within the Emergency Department (ED) are major factors in the lack of use of thrombolytic therapy for stroke. The Genentech Stroke Presentation Survey was a multicentered prospective registry of patients with acute stroke. The study was designed to characterize prehospital delays and delays within the ED. Methods-Patients with stroke symptoms presenting to 48 EDs participating in a clinical trial of acute stroke therapy were enrolled prospectively. A 1-page data form was completed from patient interviews and medical records. Results-A total of 1207 subjects were entered into the study. Ninety-four percent of the 721 subjects with complete data had a diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack, 13% were black, 50% were female, and 67% were aged Ͼ65 years. The median time from symptom onset to ED arrival was 2.6 (interquartile range 1.2 to 6.3) hours. The median time from ED arrival until CT scan completion was 1.1 (0.7 to 1.8) hours, and the total delay time (symptom onset until CT scan completion) had a median of 4.0 (2.3 to 8.3) hours. Patients who arrived by emergency medical services had significantly shorter prehospital delay times and times to CT scan. Age, race, sex, and educational level did not appear to affect prehospital delay times. Conclusions-Despite its limitations, this large geographically diverse study strongly suggests that the use of emergency medical services is an important modifiable determinant of delay time for the treatment of acute stroke. (Stroke. 2000;31:2585-2590.)

Background and Purpose-With the advent of time-dependent thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke, it has become increasingly important for stroke patients to arrive at the hospital quickly. This study investigates the association between the use of emergency medical services (EMS) and delay time among individuals with stroke symptoms and examines the predictors of EMS use. Methods-The

The purpose of this study was to systematically review and summarize prehospital and in-hospital stroke evaluation and treatment delay times. We identified 123 unique peer-reviewed studies published from 1981 to 2007 of prehospital and in-hospital delay time for evaluation and treatment of patients with stroke, transient ischemic attack, or stroke-like symptoms. Based on studies of 65 different population groups, the weighted Poisson regression indicated a 6.0% annual decline (p<0.001) in hours/year for prehospital delay, defined from symptom onset to emergency department (ED) arrival. For in-hospital delay, the weighted Poisson regression models indicated no meaningful changes in delay time from ED arrival to ED evaluation (3.1%, p=0.49 based on 12 population groups). There was a 10.2% annual decline in hours/year from ED arrival to neurology evaluation or notification (p=0.23 based on 16 population groups) and a 10.7% annual decline in hours/year for delay time from ED arrival to initiation of computed tomography (p=0.11 based on 23 population groups). Only one study reported on times from arrival to computed tomography scan interpretation, two studies on arrival to drug administration, and no studies on arrival to transfer to an in-patient setting, precluding generalizations. Prehospital delay continues to contribute the largest proportion of delay time. The next decade provides opportunities to establish more effective community based interventions worldwide. It will be crucial to have effective stroke surveillance systems in place to better understand and improve both prehospital and in-hospital delays for acute stroke care.

follicular, anaplastic, and medullary thyroid carcinoma has been extensively studied but remains uncertain. detected, intensifying the need for better prognostic information. [3][4][5][6][7][8] A number of investigators have identified prognostic factors for

Objective:To assess the determinants of prehospital delay for patients with presumed acute cerebral ischemia (ACI) in order to provide the background necessary to develop interventions to shorten such delays. Methods: A prospective registry of patients presenting to the ED with signs and symptoms of stroke was established at a university hospital from July 1995 to March 1996. Trained nurses performed a structured ED interview, which assessed prehospital delay and potential confounders. Results: The median delay (interquartile range) from symptom onset to ED arrival for all patients seeking care for stroke-like symptoms (n = 152) was 3.0 hours (1.5-7.8 hr). The median delay from symptom onset to ED arrival was less in cases where a witness first recognized that there was a serious problem than it was when the patient first identified the problem. A heightened sense of urgency by the patient about his or her symptoms, and use of 91 ]/emergency medical services (EMS) transport were also associated with rapid arrival in the ED within 3 hours of symptom onset. After adjusting for all predictor variables in a multivariable logistic regression model, only recognition of symptoms by a witness and calling 9 1 1EMS transport remained statistically significant. Conclusions: These data suggest that future efforts to intervene on prolonged prehospital delay for patients with ACI should include strategies for the community as a whole as well as persons at risk for stroke and should reinforce the use of 91 1 and EMS transport.

Current guidelines emphasize the need for early stroke care. However, significant delays occur during both the prehospital and in-hospital phases of care, making many patients ineligible for stroke therapies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review and summarize the existing scientific literature reporting prehospital and in-hospital stroke delay times in order to assist future delivery of effective interventions to reduce delay time and to raise several key issues which future studies should consider. A comprehensive search was performed to find all published journal articles which reported on the prehospital or in-hospital delay time for stroke, including intervention studies. Since 1981, at least 48 unique reports of prehospital delay time for patients with stroke, transient ischemic attack, or stroke-like symptoms were published from 17 different countries. In the majority of studies which reported median delay times, the median time from symptom onset to arrival in the emergency department was between 3 and 6 h. The in-hospital times from emergency department arrival to being seen by an emergency department physician, initiation and interpretation of a computed tomography (CT) scan, and being seen by a neurologist were consistently longer than recommended. However, prehospital delay comprised the majority of time from symptom onset to potential treatment. Definitions and methodologies differed across studies, making direct comparisons difficult. This review suggests that the majority of stroke patients are unlikely to arrive at the emergency department and receive a diagnostic evaluation in under 3 h. Further studies of stroke delay and corresponding interventions are needed, with careful attention to definitions and methodologies.

The charts of 480 patients with secondary bacterial peritonitis were reviewed. The antibiotics used were compared with the culture and sensitivity data obtained at surgery, and the outcomes of patients were evaluated. Patients treated with a single broad-spectrum antibiotic had a better outcome than patients treated with multiple drug treatment. Inadequate empiric antibiotic treatment was associated with poorer outcome than any other type of treatment. The outcome of this inadequate treatment group could not be improved by any antibiotic response to culture and sensitivity information after operation. Those patients treated with antibiotic coverage for anticipated organisms and having no cultures taken did as well as patients having cultures taken. Surgeons typically ignore culture data after operation, and only 8.8% of patients in this study had an appropriate change in antibiotic treatment after operation. A benefit from obtaining operative cultures could not be identified.