Abstract 84: Thirty-day Mortality of Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) According to Hospital Reperfusion Strategy: The Importance of Examining Outcomes of Both Treated and Not Treated Patients

Author(s):  
Laurie J Lambert ◽  
Yongling Xiao ◽  
Simon Kouz ◽  
Stéphane Rinfret ◽  
Eli Segal ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: In Quebec (Canada), patients with STEMI present to 1 of 4 types of hospitals: 1) primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) centers; 2) non-PPCI centers that systematically transfer patients for PPCI; 3) ‘mixed centers’ that transfer some patients for PPCI and treat others with fibrinolysis; and 4) centers that exclusively treat with fibrinolysis. In all centers, substantial proportions of STEMI patients do not receive any reperfusion therapy for a variety of reasons. Overall STEMI outcomes may vary by type of reperfusion strategy and who is selected to receive it. METHODS: All acute care centers that annually treated ≥ 30 acute myocardial infarctions participated in 2 field evaluations (n=80 in 2006-7; n=81 in 2008-9). All patients had a final diagnosis of myocardial infarction, characteristic symptoms and STEMI confirmed by centralized ECG interpretation. Clinical factors and comorbidities were compared across type of center for all patients, and by reperfusion therapy status. Odds ratios (OR) of 30-day mortality were estimated separately for treated, untreated and all STEMI patients. RESULTS: Of the 3731 STEMI patients, 29.7% presented to PPCI-capable centers, 33.0% to exclusive PPCI transfer centers, 26.7% to mixed centers (66% transferred for PPCI, 34% received fibrinolysis) and 10.6% to exclusive fibrinolysis centers. The proportion of untreated patients increased with decreasing PPCI access: 16.7% in PPCI centers, 21.4% in transfer PPCI centers, 24.9% in mixed centers and 29.8 % in fibrinolysis centers. Mixed center patients transferred for PPCI had the longest treatment delays (only 17% within guidelines). For treated patients, there were no significant differences in adjusted OR across type of center (see Table). However, for untreated patients, risk of death was significantly higher in transfer PPCI and mixed centers compared to PPCI centers. Risk was significantly higher in mixed centers for all STEMI patients combined. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that in centers that transfer for PPCI, treatment selection bias may mask important disparities in STEMI outcomes, especially in centers with long transfer delays. When evaluating hospital outcomes for STEMI, it is important to examine not only those who are treated but also patients who do not receive reperfusion therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zouina Sarfraz ◽  
Azza Sarfraz ◽  
Muzna Sarfraz ◽  
Zainab Nadeem ◽  
Hafiza Hussain ◽  
...  

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is a non-surgical procedure that requires catheterization to improve blood flow to the heart and is the recommended therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered the course of reperfusion therapy for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is imperative to emphasize the awareness of timely PCI and the effects it has on improving patient outcomes. Based on the consensus statement by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College for Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), it is critical to inform the public to call the emergency medical system for AMI symptoms and obtain the appropriate level of care. Ultimately, COVID-19 has posed unprecedented challenges to public health. The immediate threat is linked to morbidity and mortality related to the infection, and the masked threat is the waning attention and resources utilized for the care of other diseases. First medical contact is the main time target, and reducing treatment delays to improve patient outcomes in AMI patients with STEMI should be the next immediate objective in healthcare systems worldwide.


2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (01) ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Huber ◽  
S. Halvorsen

SummaryPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), as long as it can be delivered within 90-120 minutes from patient’s first medical contact, and is the leading reperfusion strategy in most European countries. However, as PPCI cannot be offered in a timely manner to all patients, fibrinolytic therapy (FT) is the recommended choice in patients with an anticipated delay to PPCI of >90-120 minutes, presenting early after symptom onset and without contra-indications. FT should preferably be started in the pre-hospital setting. Following FT, all patients should be transferred to a PCI-center for rescue PCI or routine coronary angiography with PCI as indicated. Such a pharmaco-invasive strategy, combining FT with invasive treatment, has recently been shown to be non-inferior to PPCI in patients living in areas with long transfer delays to PCI (>60 minutes).In this overview, we will briefly present the evidence for the benefit of FT in STEMI, and discuss the role of FT in the current era of PPCI as well as the optimal treatment following pharmacologic reperfusion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document