Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the impact of different emergency treatment methods on the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted involving 114 patients admitted to the hospital between January 2022 and December 2022. The patients were divided into two groups based on their emergency treatment methods: First Transport and Then Treatment Group (n = 56) and Treatment Before Transport Group (n = 58). Baseline characteristics, biomarker levels, echocardiographic findings, curative effects, and 1-year follow-up outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Biomarker levels and echocardiographic parameters differed significantly between the two groups, thus indicates potential variations in disease severity and prognosis. Moreover, the 1-year follow-up outcomes showed higher rates of all-cause mortality (16.07% vs. 3.45%, p = 0.022), recurrent myocardial infarction (19.64% vs. 5.17%, p = 0.019), rehospitalization for cardiovascular causes (25.05% vs. 8.62%, p = 0.019), and PCI for new lesions (23.21% vs. 6.92%, p = 0.014) in the First Transport and Then Treatment Group compared with the Treatment Before Transport Group. Conclusion: The timing of emergency treatment methods in patients with AMI undergoing PCI appeared to significantly impact clinical outcomes, echocardiographic parameters, and 1-year follow-up outcomes. Immediate administration of treatment before transport showed potential benefits in mitigating myocardial damage and improving long-term prognosis compared with the approach of transporting the patient to the healthcare facility before initiating treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiao et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: