Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 685

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.

Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial

W. Douglas Weaver·1993·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated treatment of myocardial infarction on clinical outcome. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Multicenter study involving 19 hospitals and all paramedic systems in the Seattle, Wash, metropolitan area. PATIENTS: A total of 360 patients with symptoms for 6 hours or less, no risk factors for serious bleeding, and ST-segment elevation were selected by paramedics and a remote physician for inclusion into the trial. They represented 4% of patients with chest pain who were screened and 21% of those with acute infarction. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were allocated to have aspirin and alteplase treatment initiated before or after hospital arrival. Intravenous sodium heparin was administered to both groups in the hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary endpoint was a ranked composite score (combining death, stroke, serious bleeding, and infarct size). The relation between time to treatment and outcome (composite score, infarct size, ejection fraction, and mortality) was also assessed. RESULTS: Initiating treatment before hospital arrival decreased the interval from symptom onset to treatment from 110 to 77 minutes (P < .001). Although more patients whose therapy was initiated before hospital arrival had resolution of pain by admission (23% vs 7%; P < .001), there were no significant differences in the composite score (P = .64), mortality (5.7% vs 8.1%), ejection fraction (53% vs 54%), or infarct size (6.1% vs 6.5%). A secondary analysis of time to treatment and outcome showed that treatment initiated within 70 minutes of symptom onset was associated with better outcome (composite score, P = .009; mortality, 1.2% vs 8.7%, P = .04; infarct size, 4.9% vs 11.2%, P < .001; and ejection fraction, 53% vs 49%, P = .03) than later treatment. Identification of patients eligible for thrombolysis by paramedics reduced the hospital treatment time from 60 minutes (for patients not in the study) to 20 minutes (for study patients allocated to begin treatment in the hospital). CONCLUSION: There was no improvement in outcome associated with initiating treatment before hospital arrival; however, treatment within 70 minutes of symptom onset--whether in the hospital or in the field--minimized the infarct process and its complications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1001/jama.270.10.1211

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 685

Metadata

Authors
Weaver, W. D.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1993-09-08
Volume
270
Issue
10
Pages
1211-1216
ISSN
0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4236077245
Cited by
685
References
0
FWCI
36.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.10.1211
The paper
Weaver, W. D. (1993). Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.10.1211

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.