scholarly journals Barriers associated with emergency medical service activation in Italian patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Baldi ◽  
R Camporotondo ◽  
M Gnecchi ◽  
R Totaro ◽  
S Guida ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Many ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS) patients fail to activate the Emergency Medical System (EMS), with possible dramatic consequences. Prior studies focusing on barriers to EMS activation include patients with any acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without representation of southern European populations. However, barriers are influenced by the ACS type and by socio-demographic and racial factors. Purpose We aimed to investigate the barriers to EMS call for patients diagnosed for STEACS in Italy. Methods A prospective, single-center, survey-based study, including all the patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEACS in a tertiary hospital in northern Italy from 1st June 2018 to 31st May 2020. Results The questionnaire was filled out by 293 patients. The majority of the participants were males (74%), married (70.4%), with a high-school degree (38.4%) and with a median age of 62 years. Chest pain as a possible symptom related to a cardiovascular attack is known by most of the respondents (89%), and left arm pain/shake by 53.7% of them, whilst the other possible signs and symptoms (i.e. dyspnea, asthenia, sweating, nausea, vomiting, dizziness) were unknown to the majority of the participants. Only 191 (65.2%) of the participants activated the EMS after symptoms onset. The main reasons for not calling EMS were the perception that symptoms were not related to an important health problem (45.5%) and that a private vehicle is faster than EMS to reach the hospital (34.7%). The median time to first medical contact was 60 minutes, and it was significantly higher in the patients who did not called EMS compared to those who did (180 [60–420] mins vs 35 [15–120] mins, p<0.001). The patients who called a private doctor after symptoms onset did not called EMS more frequently than those who did not (5.9% vs 8.2%, p=0.3). Moreover, 30% of the patients who did not call the EMS would still act in the same way if a new episode occurred and the main reasons for this were that they think to be faster than EMS (57.1%) and to live close to the hospital (17.9%). Analyzing predictors of EMS activation, only prior history of cardiovascular disease has been demonstrated to be a predictor of calling the EMS in case of symptoms suspected for STEACS. Conclusions Our study, from the southern Europe, showed that a substantial percentage of patients with symptoms suspected for STEACS preferred private vehicle rather than activating the EMS. Our results highlight the need for information campaigns targeted to both the general population and medical doctors, stressing that the EMS is faster than a private vehicle to direct the patient to the right hospital and increasing the awareness of the people on the type of possible heart attack symptoms, which seem to be the most neglected issues by patients who did not call the EMS. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-huan Gong ◽  
Jin-ming Yu ◽  
Yong Mao ◽  
Da-yi Hu

Abstract Objective To assess the anticoagulant therapy for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in China and to offer the rationale for establishing reasonable strategies to improve the prognosis of NSTE-ACS. Methods A total of 1,502 patients with NSTE-ACS were recruited from 28 third-grade hospitals distributed in 14 provinces and cities in China from December 2009 to December 2011. The strategies for diagnosis and treatment, decided by each hospital respectively, were used for further analysis and comparison of medication, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and end points for efficacy and safety assessment at 9 and 30 days following PCI. Results A lower incidence rate (P < 0.05) was noted for efficacy and safety in patients with unstable angina (UA) than those with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTE-MI). The prescription rate of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, PCI, and single medication was 0.61%, 66.42%, 30.61%, 69.64%, and 70.74%, respectively. Conclusion Compared with NSTE-MI, UA is featured with better prognosis, less severity, and different outcome. However, in clinical practice, the therapies for NSTE-MI and UA show no differences, which deserves great attention. In China, the most common anticoagulant therapies for NSTE-ACS are single medication, mainly based on LMWH and PCI.


2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 860-875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A Crouch ◽  
Jean M Nappi ◽  
Kai I Cheang

OBJECTIVE: To review the contemporary role of the glycoprotein (GYP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors abciximab, eptifibatide, and tirofiban in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and to provide an algorithm based on currently available evidence for specific agents. DATA SOURCES: Primary articles were identified by a MEDLINE search (1966–January 2003); references cited in these articles provided additional resources. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All of the articles identified from data sources were considered for relevant information; this article primarily addresses large, controlled or comparative studies, and meta-analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: The role of GYP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing PCI and those with ACS has progressed markedly. To date, abciximab has the most robust data in patients undergoing PCI, particularly high-risk individuals. In PCI patients with lower risk (e.g., elective stenting), eptifibatide is a reasonable first-line option. Data do not support tirofiban for routine use in patients undergoing PCI. For individuals with signs and symptoms of ACS, specifically unstable angina or non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI), eptifibatide or tirofiban is recommended in high-risk patients when a conservative approach is used (PCI is not planned). Abciximab is not recommended in this situation. In patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), abciximab is the only GYP IIb/IIIa inhibitor evaluated in large, well-designed investigations. For medical management in combination with a fibrinolytic agent, the role of abciximab remains unclear. For patients undergoing primary PCI for the management of STEMI, the available evidence supports the use of abciximab, albeit further investigation is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: The role of GYP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in clinical cardiology continues to evolve. Choice of the agent depends on situation of use, patient-specific characteristics and risk stratification, and, in the case of ACS, chosen management strategy (medical management or intervention).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document