Clinical Outcomes of Transferred Versus Onsite Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With STEMI: Time to Look Beyond Door to Balloon Time

Clinical Outcomes of Transferred Versus Onsite Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for... Background: It is currently unknown if the delay due to practical aspects associated with transfer of patients from a non-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facility to a primary PCI facility is associated with adverse outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and underwent primary PCI in 2 large regional STEMI centers in Massachusetts between January 2005 and June 2009. The cohort was divided into onsite patients who presented directly to the primary PCI center and transferred patients referred from another facility. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital major cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, and stroke). Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the composite endpoint and bleeding complications. Results: The cohort included a total of 1236 patients. Among them, 426 (34%) patients were transferred patients and 810 (66%) were onsite patients. The median door to balloon time was significantly higher at for transferred patients (124 vs. 71 minutes). There was no significant difference in primary composite endpoint between the 2 groups (onsite 3.8% vs. transfer 5.3%, odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 0.79–2.84; P = 0.21). Adjusted risk estimates did not show a statistical difference in all-cause bleeding rates between the groups (onsite 10.1% vs. transfer 7.3%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.41–1.14; P = 0.14). Conclusions: This study confirms that well-established and integrated regional STEMI programs provide equivalent care to transferred patients and onsite patients. Parameters beyond door to balloon times should be investigated for their contributions to improve patient outcomes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Critical Pathways in Cardiology Wolters Kluwer Health

Clinical Outcomes of Transferred Versus Onsite Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With STEMI: Time to Look Beyond Door to Balloon Time

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters_kluwer/clinical-outcomes-of-transferred-versus-onsite-primary-percutaneous-F0YCT5bAaH
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1535-282X
eISSN
1535-2811
D.O.I.
10.1097/HPC.0000000000000117
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background: It is currently unknown if the delay due to practical aspects associated with transfer of patients from a non-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facility to a primary PCI facility is associated with adverse outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and underwent primary PCI in 2 large regional STEMI centers in Massachusetts between January 2005 and June 2009. The cohort was divided into onsite patients who presented directly to the primary PCI center and transferred patients referred from another facility. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital major cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, and stroke). Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the composite endpoint and bleeding complications. Results: The cohort included a total of 1236 patients. Among them, 426 (34%) patients were transferred patients and 810 (66%) were onsite patients. The median door to balloon time was significantly higher at for transferred patients (124 vs. 71 minutes). There was no significant difference in primary composite endpoint between the 2 groups (onsite 3.8% vs. transfer 5.3%, odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 0.79–2.84; P = 0.21). Adjusted risk estimates did not show a statistical difference in all-cause bleeding rates between the groups (onsite 10.1% vs. transfer 7.3%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.41–1.14; P = 0.14). Conclusions: This study confirms that well-established and integrated regional STEMI programs provide equivalent care to transferred patients and onsite patients. Parameters beyond door to balloon times should be investigated for their contributions to improve patient outcomes.

Journal

Critical Pathways in CardiologyWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Mar 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off