Admission to hospitals with on-site catheterization facilities did not improve long-term mortality in AMI patients compared to hospitals without such facilities (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.93-1.1).
Cohort (n=12,331)
Yes
Does admission to a hospital with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities improve long-term mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
In an urban setting with unconstrained transfer mechanisms, admitting AMI patients to hospitals with on-site catheterization facilities increases procedure use and costs without improving long-term mortality.
Effect estimate: HR 1.0 (95% CI 0.93-1.1)
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented the strong association between availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities and increased use of coronary angiography in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Although these studies have shown little influence of the availability of catheterization labs on hospital mortality, no long-term follow-up has been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a cohort of 12, 331 AMI patients admitted to 19 Seattle area hospitals, we compared long-term outcome in 7985 patients admitted to hospitals with and 4346 patients admitted to hospitals without on-site catheterization labs. During the index hospitalization, patients admitted to hospitals with on-site catheterization were more likely to undergo coronary angiography (67. 1% versus 39. 3%, P<. 0001), coronary angioplasty (32. 5% versus 13. 2%, P<. 0001), or coronary bypass surgery (12. 5% versus 9. 5%, P<. 0001). At 3-year follow-up, patients admitted to hospitals with on-site catheterization labs were more likely to undergo postdischarge angiography (19. 2% versus 15. 2%, P=. 0001) and coronary angioplasty (11. 6% versus 8. 2%, P<. 0001). This was associated with approximately 2500. 00 per patient in higher cumulative costs. Despite this higher rate of procedure use, there was no association between admission to a hospital with on-site catheterization facilities and lower long-term mortality (multivariate hazard ratio, 1. 0; 95% CI, 0. 93 to 1. 1. , the hazard being associated with admission to hospitals with on-site catheterization facilities). CONCLUSIONS: In an urban area with unconstrained patient transfer mechanisms and high overall cardiac procedure use rates, AMI patients admitted to hospitals without on-site catheterization facilities were managed with fewer procedures during hospitalization and follow-up. This more conservative treatment approach was not associated with any observed increase in long-term mortality.
Every et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) (n=12,331). Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities vs. Admission to hospitals without on-site cardiac catheterization facilities was evaluated on Long-term mortality (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.93-1.1). Admission to hospitals with on-site catheterization facilities did not improve long-term mortality in AMI patients compared to hospitals without such facilities (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.93-1.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: