Transfer of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction for Primary or Acute Angioplasty from Hospitals without the Facilities to Perform Angioplasty Results from the Pooled Data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) Registry and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR)

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted at hospitals without angioplasty facilities there are some subgroups of patients which seem to profit from a transfer to primary or acute angioplasty. However, current clinical practice at such hospitals is unknown. We analyzed the pooled data of the german acute myocardial infarction registries MITRA and the MIR. Angioplasty was not available at 221/271 hospitals (81.5%). Out of 14,487 patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to these hospitals, 50.1% (7,259/14,487) received thrombolysis at the initial hospital and 3.6% (523/14,487) were transferred. Out of the transferred patients, 55.3% (289/523) were treated with primary angioplasty and 44.7% (234/523) received a combination of thrombolysis and angioplasty. The proportion of transferred patients increased from 1.1% in 1994 to 5.5% in 1998 (p for trend = 0.001). One hundred and four hospitals (47.1%) never transferred patients. Patients transferred for primary angioplasty (289 patients) were compared to patients treated with thrombolysis at the initial hospitals (7,259 patients). Multivariate analysis showed the following independent predictors for transfer of patients for primary angioplasty: contraindications for thrombolysis (OR = 17.9), a non-diagnostic first ECG (OR = 4.0), pre-hospital delay S 6 hours (OR = 2.5), unknown symptom onset of the acute myocardial infarction (OR = 2.0) and anterior wall acute myocardial infarction (OR = 1.6). Heart failure at admission was the only dependent predictor not to transfer patients (OR = 0.40). In Germany only 47.1% of hospitals without angioplasty facilities transfer patients with acute myocardial infarction to primary or acute angioplasty. The proportion of transferred patients increased from 1.1% in 1994 to 5.5% in 1998. Contraindications for thrombolysis were the strongest predictor to transfer patients to primary angioplasty. Zusammenfassung Aus der Gruppe von Patienten mit einem akuten Myokardinfarkt lassen sich einzelne Subgruppen definieren, die von einer akuten Koronarintervention profitieren können. Werden solche Patienten von Krankenhäusern ohne die Möglichkeit zur Durchführung von Koronardilatationen aufgenommen, könnten sie anschließend zu einer Intervention verlegt werden. Die gegenwärtige klinische Praxis an nicht inter-ventionellen Krankenhäusern ist jedoch bisher nicht untersucht worden. Wir werteten die gepoolten Daten der beiden deutschen Herzinfarktregister MITRA (= Maximale Individuelle Therapie beim Akuten Myokardinfarkt) und MIR (= Myokardinfarkt-Register) aus. Die Möglichkeit zur Koronarintervention war bei 221 der 271 teilnehmenden Kliniken (81,5%) nicht gegeben. Von den 14 487 Patienten mit einem akuten Myokardinfarkt, die von diesen Kliniken eingeschlossen wurden, erhielten 50,1% (7 259/14 487) eine Thrombolyse in der aufnehmenden Klinik, und 3,6% (523/14 487) wurden zu einer Akutintervention verlegt. Von den verlegten Patienten wurden 55,3% (289/523) mittels Primärdilatation und 44,7% (234/523) mittels einer Kombination aus Thrombolyse und Dilatation behandelt. Der Anteil der verlegten Patienten an der Gesamtheit aller an den nicht interventionellen Krankenhäusern eingeschlossenen Herzinfarktpatienten stieg von 1,1% im Jahr 1994 auf 5,5% in 1998 (p für Trend = 0,001). 104 Krankenhäuser (47,1%) verlegten zu keiner Zeit der Erhebung Patienten zur Akutintervention. Patienten, die zur Primärdilatation verlegt wurden (289 Patienten), verglichen wir mit Patienten, die mittels Thrombolyse an dem Aufnahmekrankenhaus behandelt wurden (7 259 Patienten). Eine logistische Regressionsanalyse ergab für die folgenden Variablen eine unabh&ängige Assoziation mit der Verlegung zur Primärdilatation: das Vorliegen von Kontraindikationen zur Thrombolyse (OR = 17,9), ein nicht diagnostisches Erst-EKG (OR = 4,0), eine Prähospitalzeit über sechs Stunden (OR = 2,5), ein unbekannter Infarktbeginn (OR = 2,0) und das Vorliegen eines Vorderwandinfarkts (OR = 1,6). Das Vorliegen einer Herzinsuffizienz bei der Aufnahme war der einzige unabhängige Prädiktor, einen Patienten nicht zur Primärdilatation zu verlegen (OR = 0,40). In Deutschland verlegten zur Zeit der Erhebung nur 47,1% der Krankenhäuser ohne die Möglichkeit der Koronarintervention Patienten mit einem akuten Myokardinfarkt zur Primär- oder Akutdilation. Der Anteil an verlegten Patienten stieg von 1,1% im Jahr 1994 auf 5,5% in 1998. Das Vorliegen von Kontraindikationen zur Thrombolyse war der wichtigste Prädiktor, Herzinfarktpatienten zur Primärdilatation zu verlegen.     

Decreasing hospital mortality between 1994 and 1998 in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty but not in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) Registry and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR)

OBJECTIVES

We investigated changes in the clinical outcome of primary angioplasty and thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 1994 to 1998.

BACKGROUND

Primary angioplasty for the treatment of AMI is a sophisticated technical procedure that requires experienced personnel and optimized hospital logistics. Growing experience with primary angioplasty in clinical routine and new adjunctive therapies may have improved the outcome over the years.

METHODS

The pooled data of two German AMI registries: the Maximal Individual Therapy in AMI (MITRA) study and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 10,118 lytic eligible patients with AMI, 1,385 (13.7%) were treated with primary angioplasty, and 8,733 (86.3%) received intravenous thrombolysis. Patients characteristics were quite balanced between the two treatment groups, but there was a higher proportion of patients with a prehospital delay of >6 h in those treated with primary angioplasty. The proportion of an in-hospital delay of more than 90 min significantly decreased in patients treated with primary angioplasty over the years (p for TREND = 0.015, multivariate odds ratio [OR] for each year of the observation PERIOD = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73– 0.96) but did not change significantly in patients treated with thrombolysis. Hospital mortality decreased significantly in the primary angioplasty group (p = 0.003 for trend; multivariate OR for each YEAR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58– 0.93). However, for patients treated with thrombolysis, hospital mortality did not change significantly (p for trend 0.175, multivariate OR for each year: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94– 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with thrombolysis the clinical results of primary angioplasty for the treatment of AMI improved from 1994 to 1998. This indicates a beneficial effect of the growing experience and optimized hospital logistics of this technique over the years.     

Effect of preinfarction angina pectoris on outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty (results from the Myocardial Infarction Registry

Preinfarction angina is associated with better clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who receive intravenous thrombolysis. This has not been proved in patients with AMI treated with primary angioplasty. We analyzed the data of the prospective multicenter Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR). Of 14,440 patients with AMI, 774 with a prehospital delay of < or =12 hours were treated with primary angioplasty. Five hundred thirty-two patients (68.7%) had preinfarction angina. Patients with preinfarction angina were slightly older than patients without (63 vs 62 years, p = 0.042), prehospital delay was 1 hour longer (180 vs 120 minutes, p = 0.001), and arterial hypertension was more prevalent (47.6% vs 32.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.39 to 2.62). There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (5.6% vs 3.3%, OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.87), reinfarction, stroke, or the combined end point of death, reinfarction, or stroke between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis showed no association of preinfarction angina with the occurrence of either death (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 6.08) or the combined end points (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.31). There was also no significant difference in mortality (6% vs 5.1%, OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.52), reinfarction, stroke, postinfarction angina, or the combined end points between patients with preinfarction angina within 48 hours compared with patients with preinfarction angina between 49 hours and 4 weeks before the AMI. Thus, the MIR data showed no protective effects of preinfarction angina in patients with AMI treated with primary angioplasty.     

Type of treatment and short-term outcome in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with a primary coronary angioplasty facility. The TRIANA (TRatamiento del Infarto Agudo de miocardio eN Ancianos) Registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The nature and outcome of treatment for acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients admitted to Spanish hospitals with primary angioplasty facilities are not well documented. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective analysis of registry data on patients > or =75 years old with ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction admitted between April and July 2002 to Spanish hospitals with an active primary angioplasty program. RESULTS: We followed up 410 consecutive patients for 1 month. Their mean age was 80 (4.3) years and 46% were female. The median delay between symptom onset and arrival at hospital was 190 minutes. Around 42% of patients received no reperfusion therapy, 35% were treated by thrombolysis, and 22% by primary angioplasty. Patients who underwent reperfusion therapy were younger, were more frequently male, had a shorter delay from symptom onset to hospital arrival, and had a better initial hemodynamic status (Killip Class). However, they were more likely to have extensive anterior infarctions. Overall, 30-day mortality was 24.9%. Independent predictors of death were age, systolic blood pressure, and Killip class >1, but not use of thrombolysis or primary angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Over 42% of elderly patients with myocardial infarction admitted to Spanish hospitals with angioplasty facilities did not receive reperfusion therapy. Thrombolysis was the most frequently used reperfusion therapy. However, neither thrombolysis nor primary angioplasty improved 30-day mortality.     

Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study.

BACKGROUND: Primary coronary angioplasty is an effective reperfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction. However, its availability is limited, and transporting patients to an angioplasty centre in the acute phase of myocardial infarction has not yet been proved safe. METHODS: The PRAGUE study (PRimary Angioplasty in patients transferred from General community hospitals to specialized PTCA Units with or without Emergency thrombolysis) compared three reperfusion strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction, presenting within 6 h of symptom onset at community hospitals without a catheterization laboratory: group A - thrombolytic therapy in community hospitals (n=99), group B - thrombolytic therapy during transportation to angioplasty (n=100), group C - immediate transportation for primary angioplasty without pre-treatment with thrombolysis (n=101). RESULTS: No complications occurred during transportation in group C. Two ventricular fibrillations occurred during transportation in group B. Median admission-reperfusion time in transported patients (group B 106 min, group C 96 min) compared favourably with the anticipated >90 min in group A. The combined primary end-point (death/reinfarction/stroke at 30 days) was less frequent in group C (8%) compared to groups B (15%) and A (23%, P<0. 02). The incidence of reinfarction was markedly reduced by transport to primary angioplasty (1% in group C vs 7% in group B vs 10% in group A, P<0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Transferring patients from community hospitals to a tertiary angioplasty centre in the acute phase of myocardial infarction is feasible and safe. This strategy is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of reinfarction and the combined clinical end-point of death/reinfarction/stroke at 30 days when compared to standard thrombolytic therapy at the community hospital.     

A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study

OBJECTIVES: The Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) study was designed to determine the best reperfusion strategy for patients with high-risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at hospitals without percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) capability. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that high-risk patients have better outcomes with primary PTCA than with thrombolytic therapy. It is unknown whether this advantage would be lost if the patient had to be transferred for PTCA, and reperfusion was delayed. METHODS: Patients with high-risk AMI (age >70 years, anterior MI, Killip class II/III, heart rate >100 beats/min or systolic BP <100 mm Hg) who were eligible for thrombolytic therapy were randomized to either transfer for primary PTCA or on-site thrombolysis. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized before the study ended (71 to transfer for PTCA and 67 to thrombolysis). The time from arrival to treatment was delayed in the transfer group (155 vs. 51 min, p < 0.0001), largely due to the initiation of transfer (43 min) and transport time (26 min). Patients randomized to transfer had a reduced hospital stay (6.1 +/- 4.3 vs. 7.5 +/- 4.3 days, p = 0.015) and less ischemia (12.7% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.007). At 30 days, a 38% reduction in major adverse cardiac events was observed for the transfer group; however, because of the inability to recruit the necessary sample size, this did not achieve statistical significance (8.4% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.331). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with high-risk AMI at hospitals without a catheterization laboratory may have an improved outcome when transferred for primary PTCA versus on-site thrombolysis; however, this will require further study. The marked delay in the transfer process suggests a role for triaging patients directly to specialized heart-attack centers.     

Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction at hospitals with no surgery on-site (the PAMI-No SOS study) versus transfer to surgical centers for primary angioplasty

OBJECTIVES: To investigate primary angioplasty (PA) for high-risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at hospitals with no cardiac surgery on-site (No SOS), we hypothesized that a nonrandomized registry of such patients treated with PA would show clinical outcomes similar to those of a group randomized to transfer for PA, and that reperfusion would occur faster. BACKGROUND: Primary angioplasty provides outcomes superior to fibrinolytic therapy in AMI, but its use in community hospitals with No SOS has been limited. METHODS: Fibrinolytic-eligible patients with high-risk AMI prospectively consented if they had one or more high-risk characteristic. Nineteen hospitals with No SOS prospectively enrolled 500 patients for PA on-site. Seventy-one similar Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction trial patients were randomized to transfer for PA. RESULTS: Primary angioplasty was performed in 88% of patients. Patients transferred for PA had a longer mean time to treatment (187 vs. 120 min; p < 0.0001). Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3 was achieved in 96% for on-site PA, 86% in the transfer group (p = 0.004). The combined primary end point of 30-day mortality, re-infarction, and disabling stroke occurred in 27 (5%) on-site PA patients and 6 (8.5%) transfer patients (p = 0.27). Unadjusted one-year mortality was improved in on-site PA patients compared with those transferred (6% vs. 13%, p = 0.043), but after adjustment for differences in baseline variables, this difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: On-site PA and transfer groups had similar 30-day outcomes and more rapid reperfusion for on-site PA. Primary angioplasty in high-risk AMI patients at hospitals with No SOS is safe, effective, and faster than PA after transfer to a surgical facility.     

Differences in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy. Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) Study Group

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the differences in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with primary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis in clinical practice. METHODS: In all, 5,906 patients with AMI were registered by the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) study. Of these, 491 (8.3%) patients were treated with primary angioplasty and 2,817 (47.7%) with intravenous thrombolysis. RESULTS: There were only minor differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Prehospital delay time (median) was longer in the angioplasty group than in the thrombolysis group (161 vs. 120, p = 0.001), as was door-to-treatment time (88 vs. 30 min; p = 0.001). Patients treated with primary angioplasty more often had contraindications for thrombolytic therapy (12.9 vs. 6%, p = 0.001) and received beta blockers (65 vs. 58.1%, p = 0.004), heparin (98.2 vs. 91.6%, p = 0.001), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (64.8 vs. 50%, p = 0.001) and "optimal" concomitant medication (56.4 vs. 42.9%, p = 0.001) more often. Univariate analysis showed a significant lower incidence of heart failure (5.3 vs. 16.5%, p = 0.001), postinfarct angina (7.3 vs. 16.4%, p = 0.001), in-hospital death (7.9 vs. 11.7%, p = 0.015) and the combined end point (21.6 vs. 40.3%, p = 0.001) in these patients. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed optimal concomitant medication [odds ratio (OR) = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.98) and the type of revascularization (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.73) to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of the combined end point. Similar results were obtained in all predefined subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, patients treated with primary angioplasty are more often treated with beta blockers and ACE inhibitors than patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Thus, the selection of patients and the type of revascularization contributes to the reduction in mortality, overt heart failure, and postinfarct angina in these patients.     

Spectrum of reperfusion strategies and factors influencing the use of primary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with the facilities to perform primary angioplasty

OBJECTIVE—To determine the frequency of the use of primary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction and the factors influencing its indications in hospitals with the facilities to perform this treatment.
DESIGN—Data from the maximal individual therapy in acute myocardial infarction (MITRA) trial were analysed, concerning the effects of the decisions of individual hospitals, the time of admission of patients, and the effects of patient characteristics on the selection of reperfusion treatment.
PATIENTS—Between June 1994 and January 1997 eight hospitals treated 1532 patients with acute myocardial infarction. 418 (27.3%) were treated conservatively, 641 (41.8%) were treated using intravenous thrombolysis, 387 (25.3%) were treated using primary angioplasty, and 86 (5.6%) received a combination of thrombolysis and angioplasty.
RESULTS—The proportion of patients treated with primary angioplasty varied from 1.8% to 57.7% among the eight hospitals. The use of primary angioplasty during non-office hours also showed wide variation, ranging from 20% to 54% between centres. The use of thrombolysis was comparatively evenly distributed during the non-office hours, ranging from 50-69%. Four hospitals with a primary angioplasty use rate > 30% showed no difference in the proportion of patients with contraindications for thrombolysis, high risk patients, or a combination of both, when compared with four hospitals with a lower rate of primary angioplasty use (98/322 (30.4%) v 19/65 (29.2%), respectively, p = 0.847).
CONCLUSIONS—In hospitals with the facilities for performing primary angioplasty the most important factors influencing its use were the discretion of the individual hospital and the time of patient admission. Characteristics of patients did not influence the choice of reperfusion treatment


Keywords: acute myocardial infarction; primary angioplasty; reperfusion treatment     

Danish multicenter randomized study on fibrinolytic therapy versus acute coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 (DANAMI-2)

Background

Randomized trials have indicated that primary coronary angioplasty performed in patients admitted directly to highly-experienced angioplasty centers offers certain advantages over intravenous fibrinolytic therapy. However, the large majority of patients with acute myocardial infarction are submitted to hospitals without a catheterization laboratory. This means that additional transportation will be necessary for many patients if a strategy of acute coronary angioplasty is to be introduced as routine treatment. The delay of treatment caused by transportation might negate (part of) the benefits of primary angioplasty compared to fibrinolytic therapy given immediately at the local hospital.

Study design

The DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 (DANAMI-2) is the first large-scale study to clarify, in a whole community, which of the 2 treatment strategies is best. A total of 1900 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction are to be randomized: 800 patients will be admitted to invasive hospitals and 1100 patients will be admitted to referral hospitals. Half of the 1100 patients admitted to referral hospitals will immediately be transferred to an invasive center to be treated with primary angioplasty.

Implications

If acute transfer from a local hospital to an angioplasty center is the superior strategy, primary angioplasty should be offered to all patients as routine treatment on a community basis.     

Randomized Comparison of Primary Coronary Angioplasty With Thrombolytic Therapy in Low Risk Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Objectives. We sought to compare primary coronary angioplasty and thrombolysis as treatment for low risk patients with an acute myocardial infarction.Background. Primary coronary angioplasty is the most effective reperfusion therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction; however, intravenous thrombolysis is easier to apply, more widely available and possibly more appropriate in low risk patients.Methods. We stratified 240 patients with acute myocardial infarction at admission according to risk. Low risk patients (n = 95) were randomized to primary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy. The primary end point was death, nonfatal stroke or reinfarction during 6 months of follow-up. Left ventricular ejection fraction and medical charges were secondary end points. High risk patients (n = 145) were treated with primary angioplasty.Results. In low risk patients, the incidence of the primary clinical end point (4% vs. 20%, p < 0.02) was lower in the group with primary coronary angioplasty than in the group with thrombolysis, because of a higher rate of reinfarction in the latter group. Mortality and stroke rates were low in both treatment groups. There were no differences in left ventricular ejection fraction or total medical charges. High risk patients had a 14% incidence rate of the primary clinical end point.Conclusions. Simple clinical data can be used to risk-stratify patients during the initial admission for myocardial infarction. Even in low risk patients, primary coronary angioplasty results in a better clinical outcome at 6 months than does thrombolysis and does not increase total medical charges.(J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:908–12)© 1997 by the American College of Cardiology     

Interhospital transport for primary angioplasty improves the long-term outcome of acute myocardial infarction compared with immediate thrombolysis in the nearest hospital (one-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-1 study)

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the long-term outcomes of three reperfusion strategies in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction presenting to community hospitals. METHODS: One-year clinical outcomes were compared for 300 patients randomized in the PRimary Angioplasty in patients transferred from General community hospitals to specialized percutaneous coronary intervention Units with or without Emergency thrombolysis (PRAGUE-1) study to one of three treatment strategies: thrombolysis in a community hospital (group A, n=99); thrombolysis during immediate transportation for coronary angioplasty (group B, n=100); and immediate transportation for coronary angioplasty without thrombolysis (group C, n=101). RESULTS: Total mortality rates in group A, B and C patients were 18%, 12% and 13%, respectively (not significant). Nonfatal reinfarction occurred in 12%, 6% and 3% of patients, respectively (P<0.05). The combined endpoint (total mortality and nonfatal reinfarction rate) was reported in 30%, 18% and 16% of patients, respectively (P<0.05). In patients randomized within 2 h of the onset of symptoms, mortality rates were 18%, 3% and 8%, respectively (P<0.05). Additional revascularization procedures (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft surgery) were performed in 35%, 14% and 15% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary angioplasty (even if delayed due to patient transportation to an interventional centre) is associated with better short- and long-term clinical outcomes than thrombolysis. The combination of the two strategies did not prove superior to coronary angioplasty alone. However, it may be superior in a subset of patients with early admission. The coronary angioplasty strategy decreases the need for revascularization procedures during the subsequent one-year follow-up.     

Program of coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction in the region of Murcia (Spain). APRIMUR Registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The geographic characteristic and healthcare facilities of the region of Murcia, Spain, are enough to assure that coronary angioplasty can be carried out in acute myocardial infarction according to current guidelines. The development of a regional program for coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction may increase the number of patients who would benefit from reperfusion therapy in general and primary angioplasty in particular. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The program was initiated in April 2000 and had four steps: 1) Establishment of primary angioplasty as the treatment of choice of acute myocardial infarction in the regional reference hospital. 2) Application of phase 1 to a second hospital located 10 kilometers away from the reference hospital. 3) Extension of phase 1 to the entire city of Murcia. 4) Provision of facilities for coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction to all patients in the region. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and August 2001, 392 angioplasties were performed for acute myocardial infarction. Primary angioplasty was performed in 92% and 85% of the patients with an indication for reperfusion therapy in phase 1 and 2, respectively. The median delay (indication to beginning of procedure) was 25 and 35 minutes in phases 1 and 2, respectively. Total mortality was 11,5% (5,2% in patients without shock at admission). CONCLUSIONS: The design of a regional program of primary angioplasty may increase the number of patients who receive reperfusion therapy in compliance with current recommendations for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.     

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with early (<2 h), intermediate (2-4 h) and late (>4 h) presentation treated by primary coronary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS: We examined the clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with early (<2 h), intermediate (2-4 h) and late (>4 h) presentation treated by primary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 2635 patients enrolled in 10 randomized trials of primary angioplasty (n=1302) vs thrombolytic therapy (n=1333) in acute myocardial infarction, and baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Increase in presentation delay is associated with older age, female gender, diabetes and an increased heart rate. We classified the patients according to the time delay from symptom onset to presentation into three categories: early presentation (<2 h), intermediate presentation (2-4 h), and late presentation (>or=4 h). At 30 days the combined rate of death, non-fatal reinfarction and stroke in patients presenting early was 5.8% in the angioplasty group vs 12.5% in the thrombolysis group, in patients with intermediate presentation, 8.6% vs 14.2%, respectively, and in patients presenting late 7.7% vs 19.4%, respectively. With increasing time from symptom onset to presentation, all major adverse cardiac event rates show a trend to a larger increase in the thrombolysis group compared to the angioplasty group, both at 30 days and at 6 months after the acute event. CONCLUSIONS: Major adverse cardiac event rates are lower after angioplasty compared to thrombolysis, irrespective of time to presentation. With increasing time to presentation major adverse cardiac event rates increase after thrombolysis but appear to remain relatively stable after angioplasty.     

Clinical practice of primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in Germany: results from the MITRA and MIR registries

The pooled data of two German AMI registries: the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) study and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR) were analysed in order to 1) describe current clinical practice of primary angioplasty in Germany, 2) compare the results of primary angioplasty with those of thrombolysis in the "real world" and 3) define subgroups of patients profiting probably most from primary angioplasty. Between 1994 and 1998, 20,306 AMI patients were included in the registries. At the 271 participating hospitals angioplasty facilities were available at 18.5%. Thrombolysis was still the most frequently used reperfusion therapy at hospitals without (96%) as well as hospitals with such facilities (55%). Transfer of AMI patients for angiography was performed in 3.6% of AMI patients admitted to hospitals without angioplasty facilities. A total of 9906 lytic eligible AMI patients with a pre-hospital delay of no more than 12 hours were treated with either primary angioplasty (n = 1327) or thrombolysis (n = 8579). Univariate analysis of hospital mortality showed a more favourable course for patients treated with primary angioplasty: 6.4% versus 11.3%, OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.43-0.67, p < 0.0001. This was confirmed by logistic regression analysis: multivariate OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.77, p < 0.0001. Primary angioplasty was associated with a lower mortality in all subgroups analysed. There was a significant correlation between mortality and the absolute risk reduction (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) in the different subgroups, which showed an increasing absolute benefit of primary angioplasty compared to thrombolysis with increasing mortality risk.     

Influence of treatment delay on infarct size and clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty

Objectives. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the influence of an additional treatment delay inherent in transfer to an angioplasty center for primary angioplasty of patients with acute myocardial infarction who are first admitted to hospitals without angioplasty facilities.Background. Several randomized trials have demonstrated the benefits of primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. In recent years, increasing numbers of patients with myocardial infarction, initially admitted to hospitals without angioplasty facilities are transported to our hospital for primary angioplasty. However, the additional delay due to the transport may have a deleterious effect on infarct size and clinical outcome.Methods. In a three-year period (December 1993 to November 1996), 207 consecutive patients who were transferred for primary angioplasty were analyzed in a matched comparison with nontransferred patients. Matching criteria were age, sex, infarct location, presentation delay and Killip class.Results. Patients who were transferred had an additional median delay of 43 min. This resulted in a more extensive enzymatic infarct size and a lower ejection fraction measured at 6 months. The rate of angioplasty success defined as TIMI grade 3 flow, and the 6-month mortality rate (7%) were comparable in both groups.Conclusions. The additional delay had a deleterious effect on myocardial salvage, reflected by a larger infarct size and a lower left ventricular function. However, the patency rate and 6-month clinical outcome were not affected by this delay.     

The Danish multicentre randomized study of fibrinolytic therapy vs. primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (the DANAMI-2 trial): outcome after 3 years follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The DANAMI-2 trial showed that in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a strategy of inter-hospital transfer for primary angioplasty was superior to on-site fibrinolysis at 30 days follow-up. This paper reports on the pre-specified long-term composite endpoint at 3 years follow-up in DANAMI-2. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 1572 patients with STEMI to primary angioplasty or intravenous alteplase; 1129 patients were enrolled at 24 referral hospitals and 443 patients at 5 angioplasty centres. Ninety-six percent of inter-hospital transfers for angioplasty were completed within 2 h. No patients were lost to follow-up. The composite endpoint (death, clinical re-infarction, or disabling stroke) was reduced by angioplasty when compared with fibrinolysis at 3 years (19.6 vs. 25.2%, P =0.006). For patients transferred to angioplasty compared with those receiving on-site fibrinolysis, the composite endpoint occurred in 20.1 vs. 26.7% (P = 0.007), death in 13.6 vs. 16.4% (P = 0.18), clinical re-infarction in 8.9 vs. 12.3% (P = 0.05), and disabling stroke in 3.2 vs. 4.7% (P = 0.23). CONCLUSION: The benefit of transfer for primary angioplasty based on the composite endpoint was sustained after 3 years. For patients with characteristics as those in DANAMI-2, primary angioplasty should be the preferred treatment strategy when inter-hospital transfer can be completed within 2 h.     

Early use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the United States: experience from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 participants

This study was undertaken to examine recent trends in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors within 24 hours of admission in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to identify clinical factors associated with ACE inhibitor-prescribing patterns. Demographic, procedural, and acute medication use from 202,438 patients with AMI were collected at 1,470 US hospitals participating in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 from June 1994 through June 1996. Acute ACE inhibitor use increased from 14.0% in 1994 to 17.3% in 1996. After controlling for all important clinical variables, we found that there was a significant increase in the odds of acute ACE inhibitor treatment over time (odds ratio [OR]1.07 for each 180-day period; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.06 to 1.08; p<0.0001). Univariate data suggested that patients treated acutely with ACE inhibitors tended to be older (70.9 vs. 67.2 years) and had lower rates of in-hospital mortality (8.8% vs. 11.0%). Independent predictors of receiving an ACE inhibitor acutely included anterior wall infarction (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.32 to 1.40), Killip class 2 or 3 (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.72 to 1.83), prior myocardial infarction (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.37), prior history of congestive heart failure (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.82 to 1.95), and diabetes mellitus (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.38). Physicians are prescribing ACE inhibitors acutely in patients with AMI with increasing frequency. Patients with evidence of congestive heart failure and those with anterior myocardial infarction have the greatest expected benefit from such therapy, and these persons receive such treatment most often. However, most patients hospitalized with AMI do not receive this potentially life-saving therapy.     

Differences in treatment and outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with compared to without departments of cardiology; results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA 1+2) Registries and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR).

AIMS: The specialty of the admitting physician may influence treatment and outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: The pooled data of three German acute myocardial infarction registries: the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) 1+2 studies and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR) were analysed. Patients admitted to hospitals with departments of cardiology were compared to hospitals without such departments. A total of 24 814 acute myocardial infarction patients were included, 9020 (36%) patients at 91 (29.8%) hospitals with departments of cardiology and 15 794 (64%) at 214 (70.2%) hospitals without cardiology departments. There were only minor differences in patient characteristics and prevalence of concomitant diseases between the two types of hospital. The first electrocardiogram was more often diagnostic at hospitals with cardiology departments (71.8% vs 66.5%, P<0.001). Reperfusion therapy and adjunctive medical therapy, such as aspirin, beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors were used more often at cardiology departments (all P -values <0.001), even after adjustment for confounding parameters. Treatment improved at both types of hospital over time. Admission to a hospital with a department of cardiology was independently associated with a lower hospital mortality (14.2% vs 15.4%, adjusted OR=0.91; 95%CI: 0.83-0.99). Additional logistic regression models showed that the higher use of reperfusion therapy and recommended concomitant medical therapy was responsible for most of the survival benefit at such hospitals. CONCLUSION: Treatment of acute myocardial infarction patients at hospitals with departments of cardiology was independently associated with a higher use of recommended therapy and a lower hospital mortality compared to hospitals without such departments.     

Safety of single versus multi-vessel angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel coronary artery disease: report from the New York State Angioplasty Registry

BACKGROUND: The conventional strategy for primary angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction is angioplasty of the infarct-related vessel, even in patients with multi-vessel disease. Patients, however, often have significant lesions in multiple coronary arteries and a strategy for multi-vessel angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction has not been explored. The purpose of this study was to examine whether multi-vessel angioplasty is as safe as infarct-related vessel angioplasty in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease during acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Using the 2000-2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry database, we compared the in-hospital clinical outcomes of patients with multi-vessel disease (>70% stenosis in at least two major coronary arteries), who underwent either multi-vessel angioplasty (n=632) or infarct-related vessel angioplasty (n=1350) within 24 h of acute myocardial infarction. Patients with previous myocardial infarction, angioplasty, bypass surgery, or cardiogenic shock were excluded. RESULTS: Patients in the multi-vessel angioplasty group were less likely to be female, to have peripheral vascular disease or diabetes. They had more complex lesions and were more likely to receive stents. In-hospital mortality was three-fold lower (0.8 versus 2.3%, P=0.018) in the multi-vessel angioplasty group. No differences were observed in other ischemic complications, renal failure, or length of stay. After multivariate analysis, multi-vessel angioplasty remained a significant predictor of lower in-hospital death (odds ratio=0.27, 95% confidence interval=0.08-0.90, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the added complexity of multi-vessel angioplasty, patients in this group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality. Therefore, a strategy of multi-vessel angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction may be safe compared with infarct-related angioplasty in selected patients.