Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities did not significantly reduce mortality compared to hospitals without such facilities (HR 0.99).
Cohort (n=35,289)
Sí
Does admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities improve fatal and non-fatal outcomes in patients with a first AMI?
The availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities increases the use of invasive procedures but does not significantly improve mortality or non-fatal outcomes after a first AMI.
Estimación del efecto: HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.93-1.05)
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 20% vs 21%
BACKGROUND: Patterns of care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) strongly depend on the availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities. Although the management found at hospitals without on-site catheterization does not lead to increased mortality, little it known about its impact on resource utilization and non-fatal outcomes. METHODS: We identified all patients (n = 35,289) admitted with a first AMI in the province of Quebec between January 1, 1996 and March 31, 1999 using population-based administrative databases. Medical resource utilization and non-fatal and fatal outcomes were compared among patients admitted to hospitals with and without on-site cardiac catheterization facilities. RESULTS: Cardiac catheterization and PCI were more frequently performed among patients admitted to hospitals with catheterization facilities. However, non-invasive procedures were not used more frequently at hospitals without catheterization facilities. To the contrary, echocardiography odds ratio (OR), 2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.93-2.16 and multi-gated acquisition imaging (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.32) were used more frequently at hospitals with catheterization, and exercise treadmill testing (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.15) and Sestamibi/Thallium imaging (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) were used similarly at hospitals with and without catheterization. Use of anti-ischemic medications and frequency of emergency room and physician visits, were similar at both types of institutions. Readmission rates for AMI-related cardiac complications and mortality were also similar adjusted hazard ratio, recurrent AMI: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.89-1.16; congestive heart failure: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15; unstable angina: 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; mortality: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05). CONCLUSION: Although on-site availability of cardiac catheterization facilities is associated with greater use of invasive cardiac procedures, non-availability of catheterization did not translate into a higher use of non-invasive tests or have an impact on the fatal and non-fatal outcomes available for study in our administrative database.
Halabi et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=35,289). Admission to hospital with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities vs. Admission to hospital without on-site cardiac catheterization facilities was evaluated on Mortality at 1 year (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05). Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities did not significantly reduce mortality compared to hospitals without such facilities (HR 0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: