Why the study?
ESC guidelines recommend reperfusion time of 120 minutes or less for STEMI patients admitted to non-primary PCI centers, but adherence and its prognostic impact required evaluation.
Does an ECG-to-reperfusion time ≤120 minutes improve outcomes in STEMI patients admitted to hospitals without primary PCI?
Does an ECG-to-reperfusion time ≤120 minutes improve outcomes in STEMI patients admitted to hospitals without primary PCI?
Achieving an ECG-to-reperfusion time of ≤120 minutes in STEMI patients transferred for primary PCI is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality and complications.
Supports timely reperfusion in STEMI; hypothesis-generating for protocol optimization in prospective trials.
Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION According to 2017 ESC guidelines for STEMI, reperfusion time of patients not admitted in centers with primary PCImust be ≤120 minutes (min). OBJECTIVE: To analyze the proportion of patients with STEMI admitted in hospitals without primary PCI in which reperfusion time was ≤120 min and to understand its prognostic impact. METHODS: Multicentric, retrospective study. 1909 STEMI pts with <12h of symptoms evolution, admitted in hospitals without primary PCI betweenOctober 2010 and September 2019 who underwent primary PCIwere analyzed. Patients were studied according to the ECG-reperfusion time: ≤120 min (Group 1 – G1) or >120 min (Group 2 – G2). RESULTS: G1 corresponded to 42.5% while G2 to 57,5%. In both groups patients were mainly male. G1 1 was younger (61 ± 13 vs 64 ± 14, p < 0.001) and had more prevalence of smoker patients (44.1% vs 36.1%, p < 0.001). G2 have more often diabetes (25.9 % vs 21.2%, p = 0.02). Time until the 1 st medical contact and admission was longer inG2 (120 min vs 105 min, p = 0.004). "Via verde coronária"was more frequently activated inG1 (5.5% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences on the KK classification on admission, but G2 had more prevalence of severe left ventricular disfunction (LVEF ≤ 30%: G1 = 3%, G2 = 6%, p = 0.002). During the hospitalization, G2 had significantly higher rates of heart failure (11.7% vs 17.4%, p < 0.001) and cardiogenic shock (3.6% vs 5.7%, p = 0.036). Cardiac arrest on admission was more prevalent inG2 (3% vs 5.2%, p = 0.017). Mortality during hospitalization was higher inG2 (1.6 vs 4.2%, p < 0.001). Patients admitted on North were mainly inG2 (n = 493, 39.6% vs 60.4%) as on Center (n = 253, 25.7% vs 74.3%) and South (n = 304, 35.3% vs 64.7%). In Lisbon and Tejo Valley patients were mainly onG1 (n = 860, 51.6% vs 48.4%). Follow-up was performed in 859 patients (G1 = 42.6% vs G2 = 54.4%). After 1 year, there were no differences in mortality (G1 = 16 deaths, G2 = 26 deaths, p = 0.520). Cardiovascular and noncardiovascular readmissions were also not difference between the groups mortality (p = 0.782 and p = 0.548, respectively). CONCLUSION: Most of the patients did not comply the current guidelines. Reduction of system delay in STEMIremains crucial, since lower reperfusion time have less in-hospital complications and mortality. Follow-up was not performed in all patients which can justify the results. This work shows that it is fundamental to adopt organizational measures to reduce system delay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oliveira et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: