The Barriers to Rapid Reperfusion in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Introduction This study aimed to quantify the contribution of various obstacles to timely reperfusion therapy in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to improve performance in a mixed remote rural/urban region. Methods From November 1, 2020 to April 23, 2021, patients with acute STEM...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiology and therapy 2022-12, Vol.11 (4), p.559-574
Hauptverfasser: Bartnes, Kristian, Albrigtsen, Hilde, Iversen, Johanne M., Brovold, Henrik, Møller, Niels H., Wembstad, Bjørn, Arstad, Frode, Kristensen, Andreas H., Cortis, Julia, Olsen, Siv J., Nygaard, Ståle N. S., Kindler, Sven G., Moe, Oddgeir, Hansen, Christian, Mannsverk, Jan T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction This study aimed to quantify the contribution of various obstacles to timely reperfusion therapy in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to improve performance in a mixed remote rural/urban region. Methods From November 1, 2020 to April 23, 2021, patients with acute STEMI were prospectively monitored with the critical time intervals, treatment modalities, and outcomes registered. Selected clinical decision-makers in 11 hospitals were appointed as improvement agents and systematically provided with weekly updated information about absolute and relative performance. Suggestions for improvements were invited and shared. Results Only 29% of the 146 patients received reperfusion therapy within recommended time limits [prehospital thrombolysis, 2/48; in-hospital thrombolysis, 0/20; primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), 37/68, with median intervals from the first medical contact of 44, 49, and 133 min, respectively]. Efficiency varied considerably between health trusts: median time from the first medical contact to prehospital thrombolysis ranged from 29 to 54 min (hazard ratio 4.89). The predominant, remediable causes for delays were erroneous tactical choices and protracted electrocardiographic diagnostication, decision-making, and administration of fibrinolytic medication. During the trial, the time to pPCI was non-significantly reduced. Conclusion We found several targets for system improvements in order to mitigate reperfusion delays along the entire chain of care, regardless of reperfusion modality chosen. More patients should receive prehospital thrombolysis. The most important measures will be training to ensure a more efficient on-site workflow, improved protocols and infrastructure facilitating the communication between first responders and in-hospital clinicians, and education emphasizing prehospital transport times. Clinical Trials Identifier NCT04614805.
ISSN:2193-8261
2193-6544
DOI:10.1007/s40119-022-00281-7