Key result
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).
Why the study?
Does admission to a hospital with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities improve long-term mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Population
12,331 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients admitted to 19 Seattle area hospitals
Comparison
Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac… vs Admission to hospitals without on-site cardiac…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
3 years
Authors
Loading...
May not support preferential AMI admission to hospitals with on-site catheterization; leaves open need for randomized trials on transfer policies.
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?
Effect estimate: HR 1.0 (95% CI 0.93-1.1)
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.
Every et al. (1997) 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: