Outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted in hospitals with or without catheterization laboratory: results from the HELIOS registry

Abstract

Aims

To compare the treatment and outcomes of myocardial infarction patients in hospitals with and without catheterization laboratory.

Methods and results

The Hellenic Infarction Observation Study was a countrywide registry of acute myocardial infarction, conducted during 2005-2006. The registry enrolled 1840 patients with myocardial infarction from 31 hospitals with a proportional representation of all types of hospitals and of all geographical areas. Out of these patients, 645 (35%) were admitted in 11 hospitals with and 1195 (65%) in 20 hospitals without catheterization laboratory. Patients admitted in hospitals with catheterization laboratory in comparison with patients admitted in hospitals without were younger (66 ± 14 vs. 68 ±13, P < 0.004) with less diabetes (27 vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but without other baseline differences (female 27 vs. 25%, prior myocardial infarction 20 vs. 17%, Killip class >1 22 vs. 23%). Reperfusion rates for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were 67% (43% lytic, 24% primary percutaneous coronary interventions) versus 56% (55% lytic, 1% percutaneous coronary interventions; P < 0.01). In-hospital outcomes in hospitals with versus in hospitals without laboratory were: mortality 6.5 versus 8.3% (NS), stroke 2.2 versus 1.1% (NS), major bleeding 1.1 versus 0.6% (NS), and heart failure 11 versus 16% (P < 0.01). In multivariate regression analysis, being admitted in a hospital without catheterization laboratory was not an independent predictor of increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.93, P = 0.505).

Conclusion

Although the majority of acute myocardial infarction patients was admitted in hospitals without catheterization laboratory, these patients do not have a survival disadvantage, provided they are treated with lytic therapy, medical secondary prevention drugs, and eventual revascularization according to current guidelines. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 16:85-90 © 2009 The European Society of Cardiology

Keywords

acute myocardial infarction catheterization laboratory noninvasive hospitals registry

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Silber

Albertson

Aviles

Camici

Colombo

Hamm

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005; 26:804–847.

2 The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:28–66.

3 The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2007; 28:1598–1660.

4 Andrikopoulos

Pipilis

Goudevenos

Tzeis

Kartalis

Oikonomou

; HELIOS investigators. Epidemiological characteristics, management and early outcome of acute myocardial infarction in Greece. The Hellenic Infarction Observation Study (HELIOS). Hellenic J Cardiol 2007; 48:325–334.

Luepker

Apple

Christenson

Crow

Fortmann

Goff

Case definitions for acute coronary heart disease in epidemiology and clinical research studies. Circulation 2003; 108:2543–2549.

6 Pipilis

Paschidi

Andrikopoulos

Goudevenos

. Seven plus one reasons for surveys of acute myocardial infarction in Greece. Hellenic J Cardiol 2006; 47:194–197.

7 Chimonas

Zacharoulis

Pipilis

Toutouzas

. Panhellenic study of acute myocardial infarction. Hellenic J Cardiol 1997; 38:123–137.

Hasdai

Behar

Wallentin

Danchin

Gitt

Boersma

A prospective survey of the characteristics, treatments and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes in Europe and the Mediterranean basin. The Euroheart survey of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1190–1201.

Pitsavos

Panagiotakos

Antonoulas

Zombolos

Kogias

Mantas

Epidemiology of acute coronary syndromes in a Mediterranean country; aims, design and baseline characteristics of the Greek study of acute coronary syndromes (GREECS). BMC Public Health 2005; 5:23–30.

10.

10 Alpert

. Acute coronary syndromes observed from an international perspective. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1139–1140.

11.

11 Rogers

Canto

Barron

Boscarino

Schoultz

Every

. Treatment and outcome of myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without invasive capabilities. Investigators in the national registry of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35:371–379.

12.

Van der Werf

Gore

Avezum

Gulba

Goodman

Budaj

Access to catheterisation facilities in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome: multinational registry study. Br Med J 2005; 330:441.

13.

13 Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev and Rehabil 2007; 14:S1–S113.

14.

14 Euroaspire II study group. Lifestyle and risk factor management and use of drug therapies in coronary patients from 15 countries. Principal results from EUROASPIRE II Euro Heart Survey Programme. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:554–572.

15.

15 Salooma

Paakkonen

Hamalainen

Niemi

Klauka

. Use of secondary preventive medications after the first attack of acute coronary syndrome. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev and Rehabil 2007; 14:386–391.

16.

16 Fox

Goodman

Klein

Brieger

Steig

Dabbous

Avezum

. Management of acute coronary syndromes. Variations in practice and outcome; findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1177–1189.

17.

Rouleau

Moye

Pfeffer

Arnold

Bernstein

Cuddy

A comparison of management patterns after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. The SAVE investigators. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:779–784.

18.

18 Pilote

Racine

Hlatky

. Differences in the treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States and Canada. A comparison of two university hospitals. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154:1090–1096.

19.

Yusuf

Flather

Pogue

Hunt

Varigos

Piegas

Variations between countries in invasive cardiac procedures and outcomes in patients with suspected unstable angina or myocardial infarction without initial ST elevation. OASIS (Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischaemic Syndromes) Registry Investigators. Lancet 1998; 352:507–514.

20.

Kaul

Armstrong

Chang

Naylor

Granger

Lee

Long-term mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction in the United States and Canada: comparison of patients enrolled in Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-1). Circulation 2004; 110:1754–1760.

21.

21 Gerber

Goldbourt

Drory

. Interaction between income and education in predicting long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2008; 15:526–532.

22.

22 Alter

Naylor

Austin

. Long-term Ml outcomes at hospitals with or without on-site revascularization. JAMA 2001; 285:2101–2108.

23.

Bach

Cannon

Weintraub

DiBattiste

Demopoulos

Anderson

The effect of routine, early invasive management on outcome for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141:186–195.

24.

Bauer

Koeth

Junger

Heer

Wienbergen

Gitt

Effect of an invasive strategy on in-hospital outcome in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2007; 28:2873–2878.