Amit N Vora1, DaJuanicia N Holmes1, Ivan Rokos2, Matthew T Roe1, Christopher B Granger1, William J French3, Elliott Antman4, Timothy D Henry5, Laine Thomas1, Eric R Bates6, Tracy Y Wang1. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, Sylmar. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, Torrance. 4. Cardiovascular Division, TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Guidelines for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or fibrinolysis. Among patients with STEMI who require interhospital transfer, it is unclear how reperfusion strategy selection and outcomes vary with interhospital drive times. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of estimated interhospital drive times with reperfusion strategy selection among transferred patients with STEMI in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 22,481 patients eligible for pPCI or fibrinolysis who were transferred from 1771 STEMI referring centers to 366 STEMI receiving centers in the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines database between July 1, 2008, and March 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality and major bleeding. RESULTS: The median estimated interhospital drive time was 57 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 36-88 minutes). When the estimated drive time exceeded 30 minutes, only 42.6% of transfer patients treated with pPCI achieved the first door-to-balloon time within 120 minutes. Only 52.7% of eligible patients with a drive time exceeding 60 minutes received fibrinolysis. Among 15,437 patients with estimated drive times of 30 to 120 minutes who were eligible for fibrinolysis or pPCI, 5296 (34.3%) received pretransfer fibrinolysis, with a median door-to-needle time of 34 minutes (IQR, 23-53 minutes). After fibrinolysis, the median time to transfer to the STEMI receiving center was 49 minutes (IQR, 34-69 minutes), and 97.1% underwent follow-up angiography. Patients treated with fibrinolysis vs pPCI had no significant mortality difference (3.7% vs 3.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36) but had higher bleeding risk (10.7% vs 9.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.33). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the United States, neither fibrinolysis nor pPCI is being optimally used to achieve guideline-recommended reperfusion targets. For patients who are unlikely to receive timely pPCI, pretransfer fibrinolysis, followed by early transfer for angiography, may be a reperfusion option when potential benefits of timely reperfusion outweigh bleeding risk.
IMPORTANCE: Guidelines for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or fibrinolysis. Among patients with STEMI who require interhospital transfer, it is unclear how reperfusion strategy selection and outcomes vary with interhospital drive times. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of estimated interhospital drive times with reperfusion strategy selection among transferred patients with STEMI in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 22,481 patients eligible for pPCI or fibrinolysis who were transferred from 1771 STEMI referring centers to 366 STEMI receiving centers in the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines database between July 1, 2008, and March 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality and major bleeding. RESULTS: The median estimated interhospital drive time was 57 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 36-88 minutes). When the estimated drive time exceeded 30 minutes, only 42.6% of transfer patients treated with pPCI achieved the first door-to-balloon time within 120 minutes. Only 52.7% of eligible patients with a drive time exceeding 60 minutes received fibrinolysis. Among 15,437 patients with estimated drive times of 30 to 120 minutes who were eligible for fibrinolysis or pPCI, 5296 (34.3%) received pretransfer fibrinolysis, with a median door-to-needle time of 34 minutes (IQR, 23-53 minutes). After fibrinolysis, the median time to transfer to the STEMI receiving center was 49 minutes (IQR, 34-69 minutes), and 97.1% underwent follow-up angiography. Patients treated with fibrinolysis vs pPCI had no significant mortality difference (3.7% vs 3.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36) but had higher bleeding risk (10.7% vs 9.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.33). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the United States, neither fibrinolysis nor pPCI is being optimally used to achieve guideline-recommended reperfusion targets. For patients who are unlikely to receive timely pPCI, pretransfer fibrinolysis, followed by early transfer for angiography, may be a reperfusion option when potential benefits of timely reperfusion outweigh bleeding risk.
Authors: Ajay Yadlapati; Mark Gajjar; Daniel R Schimmel; Mark J Ricciardi; James D Flaherty Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Santanu Guha; Rishi Sethi; Saumitra Ray; Vinay K Bahl; S Shanmugasundaram; Prafula Kerkar; Sivasubramanian Ramakrishnan; Rakesh Yadav; Gaurav Chaudhary; Aditya Kapoor; Ajay Mahajan; Ajay Kumar Sinha; Ajit Mullasari; Akshyaya Pradhan; Amal Kumar Banerjee; B P Singh; J Balachander; Brian Pinto; C N Manjunath; Chandrashekhar Makhale; Debabrata Roy; Dhiman Kahali; Geevar Zachariah; G S Wander; H C Kalita; H K Chopra; A Jabir; JagMohan Tharakan; Justin Paul; K Venogopal; K B Baksi; Kajal Ganguly; Kewal C Goswami; M Somasundaram; M K Chhetri; M S Hiremath; M S Ravi; Mrinal Kanti Das; N N Khanna; P B Jayagopal; P K Asokan; P K Deb; P P Mohanan; Praveen Chandra; Col R Girish; O Rabindra Nath; Rakesh Gupta; C Raghu; Sameer Dani; Sandeep Bansal; Sanjay Tyagi; Satyanarayan Routray; Satyendra Tewari; Sarat Chandra; Shishu Shankar Mishra; Sibananda Datta; S S Chaterjee; Soumitra Kumar; Soura Mookerjee; Suma M Victor; Sundeep Mishra; Thomas Alexander; Umesh Chandra Samal; Vijay Trehan Journal: Indian Heart J Date: 2017-03-23
Authors: Otavio Berwanger; Jose C Nicolau; Antonio C Carvalho; Lixin Jiang; Shaun G Goodman; Stephen J Nicholls; Alexander Parkhomenko; Oleg Averkov; Carlos Tajer; Germán Malaga; Jose F K Saraiva; Francisco A Fonseca; Fábio A De Luca; Helio P Guimaraes; Pedro G M de Barros E Silva; Lucas P Damiani; Denise M Paisani; Camila M R Lasagno; Carolina T Candido; Nanci Valeis; Diogo D F Moia; Leopoldo S Piegas; Christopher B Granger; Harvey D White; Renato D Lopes Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Kristy Kummerow Broman; Rachel M Hayes; Sunil Kripalani; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Sharon E Phillips; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Michael D Holzman; Kenneth W Sharp; Richard A Pierce; William H Nealon; Benjamin K Poulose Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.565