[From the ivory tower to the trenches. Procosity come to the coronary unit]

[Clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction not admitted to the coronary care unit. Usefulness of an intermediate care unit as the initial admission site]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is little information about the management and prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are not admitted to coronary care units (CCU) because of the lack of available beds. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and prognosis of the patients who were admitted to the intermediate care unit (INTCU) of a cardiology department.

METHODS

We compared the clinical profile, management, and 12-month prognosis of the patients admitted to the INTCU or general ward (Ward) instead of the CCU.

RESULTS

Out of 242 patients with AMI, 62 (23%) were not admitted to the CCU due to the lack of available beds. Of these, 29 (12%) were admitted to the INTCU and 26 (11%) to the Ward after being monitored for at least 24 h in the emergency room. Patients admitted to the CCU arrived at the hospital early, were younger, less frequently female, and had a lower prevalence of diabetes. ST-segment elevation AMI was more frequent in patients admitted to the CCU than in patients admitted to the INTCU or Ward (67 vs 17 and 23%, respectively; p < 0.0001), and non-Q wave AMI was less frequent (30 vs 76 and 81%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found between groups in the number of stress tests or revascularization procedures performed after the first 24 h, the duration of the hospital stay (median 8 days), or in-hospital mortality. The 12-month survival was 82, 80, and 64% in the patients admitted to the CCU, INTCU, or Ward (p < 0.05), respectively. These differences ceased to be significant after adjusting for the patients' baseline clinical profile and treatment received at admission.

CONCLUSION

Compared to patients with AMI admitted to the CCU, patients admitted to the INTCU or Ward after being monitored at least 24 h had non-ST elevation and non-Q wave AMI more frequently, but a less favorable risk profile for long-term mortality. The different types of AMI were managed similarly and had a similar 12-month prognosis. Intermediate care units may be useful for palliating the lack of CCU beds and care for some patients with AMI.

[Use of thrombolytic treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction in Spain. Observations from the PRIAMHO study]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Scarce information is actually available in our country regarding the use of thrombolytic treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction and how consistently the recommendations of the clinical guidelines are being implemented.

METHODS

Cohort study with one year follow-up of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted in 24 Spanish hospitals in 1995. Differences in clinical characteristics and prognosis from patients treated with or without thrombolysis were compared.

RESULTS

2,191 of the 5,242 patients (42%) admitted with an acute myocardial infarction received thrombolytic therapy (range: 23%-63%). Reasons for exclusion in the rest were the absence of ST segment elevation (35%), contraindications (16%), prehospital delay >12 h (35%), and other causes (15%). Thrombolysis treated patients were at lower risk in general because they had shorter prehospital delays and were younger, more likely to be male, less frequently diabetic, with less prior history of angina or infarction. The average delay in administering therapy was of 3 hours while the average in-hospital delay was 50 minutes and depended only on the hospital where patients where admitted, as it was shorter in small centers. t-PA was administered in 49% of patients, streptoquinase in 46% and other drugs in 5%. Although t-PA was given more often to younger patients, smokers, anterior and Q-wave infarctions, and to patients with shorter prehospital delays, the determinant factor was the admission hospital with a frequency ranging from 9% to 96%. Patients not treated with thrombolytics had more complications during the acute phase, and required more invasive procedures. They also had a higher mortality at 28 days (17% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001) and at one-year follow-up (27% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, a correlation was observed between mortality and delay of treatment application. In multivariate analysis, thrombolytic treatment was an independent predictor of survival at one year, with an odds ratio for mortality of 0.8 (95% CI: 0.66-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombolytic therapy in Spain does not yet conform to the recommendations of the actual guidelines for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction because it is underused, especially in high-risk patients, the prehospital and in-hospital delays are too long, and a huge variability exists between hospitals in the frequency and delays of administration and selection of the drug that are not sufficiently explained by the characteristics of the patients. In spite of this, mortality of treated patients was 20% lower in comparison to the non-treated patients, after adjusting for the other clinical factors with demonstrated prognostic value.

[The clinical management guidelines of the Sociedad Española de Cardiología in acute myocardial infarct]

In the recent years, new possibilities have emerged in the diagnosis and management of acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation and its complications. Moreover, a deep transformation has taken place in the health care system organization, particularly in aspects related to care of patients presenting non-traumatic chest pain, both in pre-hospital and hospital areas. All these issues warrant a consensus document in Spain dealing with the role that these important changes should play in the whole management of myocardial infarction patients. This document revises and updates all the main clinical issues of acute myocardial infarction patients from the moment they contact with the health care system outside the hospital until they return home, after staying at the coronary care unit and the general hospitalization ward. All those aspects are considered not only in the uncomplicated myocardial infarction but also in the complicated one. This review also includes a set of recommendations on structural and organisational aspects, mainly referred to the prehospital and emergency levels.

[Improvement in the treatment of acute myocardial infarct by the establishment of a thrombolysis unit in a cardiology servic]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Lack of available beds in the coronary care unit, makes time to thrombolysis still too long. Although fibrinolytic therapy is administered in the emergency department in most hospitals, mean in-hospital delay continues to be long. Our purpose was to improve the treatment of these patients and to evaluate if this delay could be shortened by creating a thrombolysis unit for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

A thrombolysis unit in the cardiology department was set up to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction who couldn't be admitted directly in the coronary care unit because of lack of available beds. Time to treatment in both groups of patients were compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-five patients with acute myocardial infarction and ST-segment elevation were included: 86 (38%) of them were admitted to the thrombolysis unit and the other 139 (62%) to the coronary care unit. There were no differences in baseline characteristics or in the pre-hospital delay between both groups. Time from hospital admission to thrombolysis was 59 minutes in patients treated in the thrombolysis unit versus 70 minutes in those treated in the coronary care unit (p < 0.001), and time from the admission to both units to fibrinolytic therapy was of 20 minutes versus 30 minutes respectively (p < 0.0001). There were no differences between both groups in the incidence of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital delay in thrombolysis remains too long. Implementation of a thrombolysis unit in the cardiology department shortens this delay and offers the possibility to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction at least as well as in the coronary care unit, without dependence on the availability of free beds in this unit.