Why the study?
What are the optimal logistical strategies to increase the availability of primary angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction?
What are the optimal logistical strategies to increase the availability of primary angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Expanding primary angioplasty access through transportation networks or upgrading community centers offers better clinical outcomes than in-hospital fibrinolysis for AMI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports pre-hospital or transport-based reperfusion in AMI; leaves open integration with primary angioplasty networks.
Aims: After many years of debate, primary angioplasty has emerged as the best reperfusion treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the scarce availability of qualified invasive facilities remains the major limitation of this strategy compared to the simple intravenous administration of effective lytic agents. Methods: To enlarge the availability of invasive centers where patients with AMI could be promptly treated with primary angioplasty two lines of action may be pursued; the first is the ‘up-grading’ of low-volume interventional or diagnostic laboratories that do not perform emergency interventions on a regular basis; the second is the creation of a transportation network that enables pre-hospital fibrinolysis and/or the referral of patients from non-invasive centers to high-volume tertiary structures committed to the treatment of AMI at any time. Results: Recent data obtained from randomized studies support both alternatives. In fact, pre-hospital fibrinolysis and transportation or patient transportation without previous fibrinolysis are safe and offer better clinical outcome compared to fibrinolysis started in hospital. Besides, primary angioplasty can also be performed in selected community centers intensively trained that, performing large work volumes, can achieve superior results compared to fibrinolysis started in hospital. Conclusions: The advantages and shortcomings of these two alternatives are commented on in this article
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ribichini et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: