CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Prognostic Value of the Residual SYNTAX Score After Functionally Complete Revascularization in ACS Prognostic and Practical Validation of Current Definitions of Myocardial Infarction Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction Red Cell Distribution Width in Patients with Diabetes and Myocardial Infarction: an analysis from the EXAMINE trial Effect of Pre-Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial

Original Research2014 Jul 1;114(1):24-8.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Frequency of nonsystem delays in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and implications for door-to-balloon time reporting (from the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline program)

Cotoni DA1, Roe MT, Kontos MC et al. Keywords: ST-elevation myocardial infarction; primary percutaneous coronary intervention; door-to-balloon time

ABSTRACT

The percentage of patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with door-to-balloon (D2B) times ≤90 minutes is used as a hospital performance measure for public reporting. Patients can be excluded from reporting for nonsystem-related delays. How exclusions impact D2B time reporting at the hospital level is unknown. The percentage of patients having nonsystem delays for primary PCI at the hospital level was calculated using data from the Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get with the Guidelines Registry. Hospitals were categorized based on tertiles of percentage of excluded patients: low, ≤7.1%; intermediate, >7.1% to 11.2%; and high, >11.2%. From January 1, 2007, to March 31, 2011, 43,909 patients from 294 hospitals were included. The percentage of exclusions differed substantially among hospitals (0% to 68%, median 9.2% [interquartile range 5.6% to 13.5%]). Exclusion reasons included vascular access difficulty (7.6%), cardiac arrest/intubation (38%), and PCI procedural difficulties (20%). Including patients with nonsystem delays significantly increased D2B times by ≤2 minutes for each group. The effect was larger on the proportion of patients having a D2B ≤90 minutes (low 83.6% to 85%, intermediate 82.9% to 86.3%, high 82% to 87.5%, p <0.001, for all). If a criterion of having ≥90% of patients with D2B ≤90 minutes was used, excluding patients with nonsystem delays significantly increased the proportion of patients meeting this goal for each group: low, 28% to 37%; intermediate, 17.7% to 37.5%; and high, 14% to 52% (all p <0.01). In conclusion, the proportion of patients excluded from D2B reporting varies substantially among hospitals. This has a greater impact on percentage of patients with D2B time ≤90 minutes than on median D2B times.