Literature DB >> 20031895

Outcomes among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presenting to interventional hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery.

Yuri B Pride1, John G Canto, Paul D Frederick, C Michael Gibson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The quality of care and safety and efficacy of pPCI at hospitals without on-site open heart surgery (No-OHS hospitals) remains an area of active investigation. METHODS AND
RESULTS: The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction enrolled 58 821 STEMI patients from 214 OHS hospitals (n=54 076) and 52 No-OHS hospitals (n=4745) with PCI capabilities from 2004 to 2006. Patients presenting to OHS hospitals had substantially lower in-hospital mortality (7.0% versus 9.8%, P<0.001) and were more likely to receive any form of acute reperfusion therapy (80.8% versus 70.8%, P<0.001). Patients who presented to OHS hospitals were more likely to receive guideline recommended medications within 24 hours of arrival. In a propensity score model matching for patient characteristics and transfer status, in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower among patients presenting to OHS hospitals (7.2% versus 9.3%, P=0.025). When this model was further adjusted for differences in the use of acute reperfusion therapy, medications administered within 24 hours and hospital characteristics, the mortality difference was of borderline significance (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.067). When the propensity score analysis was restricted to patients who underwent pPCI, there was no significant difference in mortality (3.8% versus 3.3%, P=0.44).
CONCLUSIONS: STEMI patients presenting to No-OHS hospitals have substantially higher mortality, are less likely to receive guideline recommended medications within 24 hours, and are less likely to undergo acute reperfusion therapy, although this difference was of borderline significance after adjusting for hospital and treatment variables. There was no difference in mortality among patients undergoing pPCI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20031895     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.841296

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes        ISSN: 1941-7713


  5 in total

1.  The trials and tribulations of percutaneous coronary intervention in hospitals without on-site CABG surgery.

Authors:  Scott Kinlay
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Percutaneous coronary interventions in facilities without cardiac surgery on site.

Authors:  Yuri B Pride; C Michael Gibson
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Frequency of early vascular aging and associated risk factors among an adult population in Latin America: the OPTIMO study.

Authors:  Fernando Botto; Sebastian Obregon; Fernando Rubinstein; Angelo Scuteri; Peter M Nilsson; Carol Kotliar
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 3.012

4.  Off-site primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a new centre is safe: comparing clinical outcomes with a hospital with surgical backup.

Authors:  K H A J Koolen; K A Mol; B M Rahel; F Eerens; S Aydin; R P T Troquay; L Janssen; W A L Tonino; J G Meeder
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.380

5.  Percutaneous coronary intervention without surgery on-site is here to stay.

Authors:  R J de Winter
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.380

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.