A review of the role of nurses and technicians in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Objective

We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written consent was obtained before angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Background

The IC process in patients with AMI is under debate. Earlier trials in this population have required prospective consent before randomization. A trial published some years ago used deferred consent, but the patient experience of this process is poorly studied.

Methods

A total of 414 patients who participated in the main trial were enrolled and asked the following questions: (1) Do you remember being asked to participate in a study? (2) How was your experience of being asked to participate; do you remember it being positive or negative? (3) Would you have liked more information about the study? (4) Do you think it would have been better if you were included in the study without being informed until a later time?

Results

Of these patients, 94% remembered being included; 85% of them experienced this positively, 12% were neutral and 3% negative. Regarding more information, 88% did not want further information, and 68% expressed that they wanted to be consulted before inclusion. Of the patients, 5% thought it would have been better to have study inclusion without consent, and 27% considered it of no importance.

Conclusion

It is reasonable to ask patients for verbal IC in the acute phase of AMI. Most patients felt positively about being asked to participate and had knowledge of being enrolled in a scientific study. In addition they objected to providing IC after randomization and treatment.

Trial registration

VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART European Union Clinical Trials Register: 2012-005260-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02311231. Registered on 8 Dec 2014.

Nurses' recognition and response to clinical deterioration in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting to the cardiac catheter laboratory for treatment of unstable acute coronary syndromes (ACS) experience a mismatch in myocardial oxygen supply and demand, causing vital sign abnormalities prior to neurological, cardiac and respiratory deterioration. Delays in detecting clinical deterioration and escalating care increases risk of adverse events, unplanned intensive care (ICU) admission, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to explore how nurses in the cardiac catheter laboratory (CCL) recognise and respond to clinical deterioration in patients with unstable ACS undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

A prospective exploratory descriptive design was used with 30 participants completing 10 written clinical scenarios. Participants scored their level of concern for each physiological cue and then then ranked their preferred immediate response based on the deterioration identified.

RESULTS

Hypotension and the presence of pain were the physiological cues of highest concern. The most common responses to clinical deterioration were to increase vital sign assessment to 5-minutely intervals, administer pain relief or provide reassurance. Despite the presence of clinical deterioration fulfilling organisational escalation of care criteria, calling cardiac arrest or rapid response team (RRT) were not commonly selected responses.

CONCLUSION

Nurses most commonly use hypotension and the presence of pain to recognise clinical deterioration in patients presenting to the CCL with an unstable ACS. Once clinical deterioration is identified, interventional cardiac nurses delay the escalation of care to the RRT or cardiac arrest team, preferring to implement local nurse initiated interventions.