Article

Regional systems of care to optimize timeliness of reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Mayo Clinic STEMI Protocol.

MBA, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. .
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 08/2007; 116(7):729-36. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699934
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Quality improvement efforts have focused on strategies to improve the timeliness of reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients who present to hospitals with and without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability. We implemented and evaluated a protocol to optimize the timeliness of reperfusion therapy and to coordinate systems of care for a PCI center and 28 regional hospitals located up to 150 miles away across 3 states.
The present study focused on a prospective, observational cohort of 597 patients who presented with ST-segment elevation and within 12 hours of symptom onset to Saint Marys Hospital and 28 regional hospitals up to 150 miles away between May 2004 and December 2006. The Mayo Clinic ST-elevation myocardial infarction protocol implemented strategies to improve timeliness of reperfusion therapy and to coordinate systems of care for transfer between hospitals. The study sample consisted of 258 patients who presented to Saint Marys Hospital and were treated with primary PCI (group A), 105 patients who presented to a regional hospital with symptom onset >3 hours and then were transferred for primary PCI (group B), and 131 patients who presented to a regional hospital with symptom onset <3 hours and were treated with full-dose fibrinolytic therapy (group C). For groups A and B, median door-to-balloon times were 71 and 116 minutes, respectively. Door-to-balloon time <90 minutes was achieved in 75% of group A and 12% of group B. Median door-to-needle time was 25 minutes for group C, and 70% had door-to-needle time <30 minutes.
The Mayo Clinic ST-elevation myocardial infarction protocol demonstrates the feasibility of implementing strategies to optimize the timeliness of reperfusion therapy and the times that can be achieved through coordinated systems of care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting to a PCI center (Saint Marys Hospital) and 28 regional hospitals without PCI capability located up to 150 miles away across 3 states.

0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives This study aims to establish if transfer distance impacts the outcome of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients transferred to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Regional emergency care systems were designed to decrease delays in reperfusion of patients but the effect of transfer distance on outcome is less established Methods We compare the characteristics and outcomes of STEMI patients transferred from a distance > 25 miles (GT25) to those transferred from distances ≤ 25 miles (LT25) by utilizing data from a regional STEMI care network in the greater Washington DC area. Results Within the transferred patients (n = 1,065), 609 patients (57%) were transferred from GT25 (median distance 36 miles), while 456 (43%) were transferred from LT25 (median distance 13 miles). Most of the baseline characteristics between the groups were similar. Door-to-balloon (DTB) was defined as the time elapsed from the presentation to the center without PCI capability to flow restoration in the culprit artery. No differences were noted in the median DTB (GT25: 158 min [122-213] vs. 149 [118-219]; p = 0.5) or in in-hospital mortality (8% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.617). By implementing the CodeHeart network, a constant decrease in DTB was noted throughout its years of operation. Conclusions For STEMI patients presenting to a non-PCI capable center, a network care system for PCI mitigates the distance factor on DTB time. This is turn translates into comparable outcomes.
    Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine 08/2014; 15(8). DOI:10.1016/j.carrev.2014.08.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior studies have suggested that patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are admitted during off-hours (weekends, nights and holidays) have higher mortality when compared to patients admitted during regular hours. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients with AMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]) who were treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) from January 1998 to June 2010 at an academic medical center. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between off-hour admission and clinical outcomes adjusted for demographic and clinical variables. Results There were 3,422 and 2,664 patients with AMI admitted during off-hours and regular hours, respectively. Patients admitted during off-hours were more likely to have STEMI (56% vs. 48%, p<0.001), have cardiogenic shock at presentation (6% vs. 4%, p=0.002) and develop shock after presentation (6% vs. 5%, p=0.004). After multivariable analyses, off-hour admission was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84-1.49), 30-day mortality (OR 1.12, 0.87-1.45), or 30-day readmissions (OR 1.01; 0.84-1.20), but was significantly associated with composite major complications; any of emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and gastrointestinal/retroperitoneal/intracranial bleeding (OR 1.27, 1.05-1.55, p=0.015). There was no significant time trend in the adjusted mortality difference between off-hours and regular hours. The results were not different between STEMI and NSTEMI. Conclusions Patients who were admitted during off-hours did not have higher mortality or readmission rates as compared to ones admitted during regular hours at an academic medical center.
    American Heart Journal 01/2014; 169(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2014.08.012 · 4.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. To assess the association of estimated interhospital drive times with reperfusion strategy selection among transferred patients with STEMI in the United States. 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. In-hospital mortality and major bleeding. 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). 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.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 12/2014; DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6573 · 13.25 Impact Factor