Key result
Accelerated care with day 3 discharge reduced hospital costs and length of stay, with similar 6-month combined clinical events compared to traditional care.
Why the study?
In low-risk patients with myocardial infarction, few data existed regarding the need for intensive care, noninvasive testing, or the appropriate length of hospital stay.
RCT (n=471)
randomized
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“For low risk patients, the total cost was $3,000 less for angioplasty than tPA.”
“It's not time for all of us to change our practice.”
Randomized trial assesses safety and cost-effectiveness of early discharge in low-risk myocardial infarction patients, suggesting clinical benefits.
OBJECTIVES: The second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI-II) study evaluated the hypothesis that primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), with subsequent discharge from the hospital 3 days later, is safe and cost-effective in low risk patients. BACKGROUND: In low risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI), few data exist regarding the need for intensive care and noninvasive testing or the appropriate length of hospital stay. METHODS: Patients with acute MI underwent emergency catheterization with primary PTCA when appropriate. Low risk patients (age <70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction >45%, one- or two-vessel disease, successful PTCA, no persistent arrhythmias) were randomized to receive accelerated care (admission to a nonintensive care unit and day 3 hospital discharge without noninvasive testing [n = 237] or traditional care [n = 234]). RESULTS: Patients who received accelerated care had similar in-hospital outcomes but were discharged 3 days earlier (4.2+/-2.3 vs. 7.1+/-4.7 days, p = 0.0001) and had lower hospital costs ($9,658+/-5,287 vs. $11,604+/-6,125 p = 0.002) than the patients who received traditional care. At 6 months, accelerated and traditional care groups had a similar rate of mortality (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.00), unstable ischemia (10.1% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.52), reinfarction (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.00), stroke (0.4% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.07), congestive heart failure (4.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.85) or their combined occurrence (15.2% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.49). The study was designed to detect a 10% difference in event rates; at 6 months, only a 2.3% difference was measured between groups, indicating an actual power of 0.19. CONCLUSIONS: Early identification of low risk patients with MI allowed safe omission of the intensive care phase and noninvasive testing, and a day 3 hospital discharge strategy, resulting in substantial cost savings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grines et al. (1998) conducted an RCT in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n=471). Accelerated care (nonintensive care unit admission and day 3 discharge without noninvasive testing) vs. Traditional care was evaluated on Combined occurrence of mortality, unstable ischemia, reinfarction, stroke, or congestive heart failure at 6 months (p=0.49). Accelerated care with day 3 discharge reduced hospital costs and length of stay, with similar 6-month combined clinical events compared to traditional care.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: