Why the study?
Primary PCI is recommended for STEMI patients even when transfer to a PCI-capable hospital is required, but the impact of transfer on long-term clinical outcomes remains unclear.
Does transferring STEMI patients to PCI-capable hospitals affect the composite of MACE at 1 year compared to direct arrival?
Population
3,576 STEMI patients with less than 12 h symptom onset-to-door time from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry
Comparison
Transfer to PCI-capable hospital vs direct arrival to PCI-capable hospital
Design
Observational cohort study
Follow-up
1 year
Key result
Transferring patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to PCI-capable hospitals did not significantly affect the 1-year rate of major adverse cardiac events compared to direct arrival (13.7% vs. 13.9%, p=0.922).
Authors
Loading...
Transfer delays yielded similar 1-year MACE in this registry; leaves open whether networks can safely prioritize primary PCI over on-site options.
Observational (n=3,576)
Yes
Does transferring STEMI patients to PCI-capable hospitals affect the composite of MACE at 1 year compared to direct arrival?
Absolute Event Rate: 13.7% vs 13.9%
p-value: p=0.922
Transferring STEMI patients to PCI-capable hospitals, despite time delays, results in similar 1-year clinical outcomes compared to direct arrival.
Kim et al. (2016) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=3,576). Transfer to PCI-capable hospital vs. Direct arrival to PCI-capable hospital was evaluated on Composite of major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization at 1 year (p=0.922). Transferring patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to PCI-capable hospitals did not significantly affect the 1-year rate of major adverse cardiac events compared to direct arrival (13.7% vs. 13.9%, p=0.922).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: