Original Article

Fibrinolytic Therapy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Kentucky Time to Establish Systems of Care?

Authors: Eric L. Wallace, DO, John R. Kotter, MD, Richard Charnigo, PhD, Liliana B. Kuvlieva, MD, Susan S. Smyth, MD, PhD, Khaled M. Ziada, MD, Charles L. Campbell, MD

Abstract

Background: Fibrinolytic therapy is recommended for ST-segment myocardial infarctions (STEMI) when primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is not available or cannot be performed in a timely manner. Despite this recommendation, patients often are transferred to PPCI centers with prolonged transfer times, leading to delayed reperfusion. Regional approaches have been developed with success and we sought to increase guideline compliance in Kentucky.

Methods: A total of 191 consecutive STEMI patients presented to the University of Kentucky (UK) Chandler Medical Center between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, extent of myocardial injury, bleeding, and 4) length of stay. Patients were analyzed by presenting facility—the UK hospital versus an outside hospital (OSH)—and treatment strategy (PPCI vs fibrinolytic therapy). Further analyses assessed primary and secondary outcomes by treatment strategy within transfer distance and compliance with American Heart Association guidelines.

Results: Patients presenting directly to the UK hospital had significantly shorter door-to-balloon times than those presenting to an OSH (83 vs 170 minutes; P < 0.001). This did not affect short-term mortality or secondary outcomes. By comparison, OSH patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy had a numeric reduction in mortality (4.0% vs 12.3%; P = 0.45). Overall, only 20% of OSH patients received timely reperfusion, 13% PPCI, and 42% fibrinolytics. In a multivariable model, delayed reperfusion significantly predicted major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval 1.15–13.0; P = 0.02), whereas the presenting institution did not.

Conclusions: In contemporary treatment of STEMI in Kentucky, ongoing delays to reperfusion therapy remain regardless of treatment strategy. For further improvement in care, acceptance of transfer delays is necessary and institutions should adopt standardized protocols in association with a regional system of care.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123: e18–e209.
 
2. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003; 361: 13–20.
 
3. Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al. Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2000; 283: 2941–2947.
 
4. Saia F, Marrozzini C, Ortolani P, et al. Optimisation of therapeutic strategies for ST- segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: the impact of a territorial network on reperfusion therapy and mortality. Heart. 2009; 95: 370–376.
 
5. Blankenship JC, Scott TD, Skelding KA, et al. Door-to-balloon times under 90 min can be routinely achieved for patients transferred for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention in a rural setting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57: 272–279.
 
6. Henry TD, Sharkey SW, Burke MN, et al. A regional system to provide timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2007; 116: 721–728.
 
7. Huang F, Hong E. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition and its clinical use. Curr Med Chem Cardiovasc Hematol Agents. 2004; 2: 187–196.
 
8. Bovill EG, Terrin ML, Stump DC, et al. Hemorrhagic events during therapy with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, heparin, and aspirin for acute myocardial infarction. Results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), phase II trial. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 115: 256–265.
 
9. Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians: 2007 Writing Group to Review New Evidence and update the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction, Writing on Behalf of the 2004 Writing Committee. Circulation. 2008; 117: 296–329.
 
10. Rathore SS, Curtis JP, Chen J, et al. Association of door-to-balloon time and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with ST elevation myocardial infarction: national cohort study. BMJ. 2009; 338: b1807
 
11. Krumholz HM, Herrin J, Miller LE, et al. Improvements in door-to-balloon time in the United States, 2005 to 2010. Circulation. 2011; 124: 1038–1045.
 
12. Pinto DS, Southard M, Ciaglo L, et al. Door-to-balloon delays with percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2006; 151: S24–S29.
 
13. Iwashyna TJ, Kahn JM, Hayward RA, et al. Interhospital transfers among Medicare beneficiaries admitted for acute myocardial infarction at nonrevascularization hospitals. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010; 3: 468–475.
 
14. Nallamothu BK, Bates ER. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol. 2003; 92: 824–826.
 
15. Nallamothu BK, Bates ER, Wang Y, et al. Driving times and distances to hospitals with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: implications for prehospital triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2006; 113: 1189–1195.
 
16. Chakrabarti A, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al. Time-to-reperfusion in patients undergoing interhospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the U.S: an analysis of 2005 and 2006 data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51: 2442–2443.
 
17. Jollis JG, Roettiq ML, Aluko AO, et al. Implementation of a statewide system for coronary reperfusion for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2007; 298: 2371–2380.
 
18. Parikh SV, Jacobi JA, Chu E, et al. Treatment delay in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a key process View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef