Etienne L Couture1, Simon Bérubé1, Karl Dalery1, André Gervais1, Richard Harvey1, Michel Nguyen1, Émilie Parenteau1, Benoit Daneault2. 1. From the Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke/Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada (E.L.C., S.B., K.D., A.G., R.H., M.N., B.D.); and Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Canada (É.P.). 2. From the Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke/Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada (E.L.C., S.B., K.D., A.G., R.H., M.N., B.D.); and Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Canada (É.P.). benoit.daneault@usherbrooke.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delays are important markers of quality of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. There is scarce data on the impact of obtaining a complete diagnostic angiography before primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at our institution between January 2012 and December 2014 were studied. After excluding patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery, 925 patients were included in the analysis. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the as-treated revascularization strategy: culprit-vessel revascularization first, contralateral angiography first, or complete angiography first. Propensity score matching was used to minimize difference in clinical characteristics between groups. Predictors of culprit-vessel first revascularization were anterior/lateral infarct location and absence of diabetes mellitus. After propensity score matching, the median vascular access-to-balloon time was 4 to 6 minutes shorter with a culprit-vessel revascularization first strategy. This reduction in time to reperfusion increased the proportion of patients treated within recommended delays. However, there was no significant difference in 30-day clinical outcomes associated with these delays reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Performing culprit-vessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention before contralateral or complete diagnostic angiography is associated with a statistically significant reduction in vascular access-to-balloon time, although the 4- to 6-minute difference is unlikely to be clinically relevant. This small but significant reduction could translate in an augmentation in the proportion of patients treated within recommended delays.
BACKGROUND: Delays are important markers of quality of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. There is scarce data on the impact of obtaining a complete diagnostic angiography before primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at our institution between January 2012 and December 2014 were studied. After excluding patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery, 925 patients were included in the analysis. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the as-treated revascularization strategy: culprit-vessel revascularization first, contralateral angiography first, or complete angiography first. Propensity score matching was used to minimize difference in clinical characteristics between groups. Predictors of culprit-vessel first revascularization were anterior/lateral infarct location and absence of diabetes mellitus. After propensity score matching, the median vascular access-to-balloon time was 4 to 6 minutes shorter with a culprit-vessel revascularization first strategy. This reduction in time to reperfusion increased the proportion of patients treated within recommended delays. However, there was no significant difference in 30-day clinical outcomes associated with these delays reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Performing culprit-vessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention before contralateral or complete diagnostic angiography is associated with a statistically significant reduction in vascular access-to-balloon time, although the 4- to 6-minute difference is unlikely to be clinically relevant. This small but significant reduction could translate in an augmentation in the proportion of patients treated within recommended delays.