Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention compared with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction transferred from community hospitals

The effects of fibrinolytic before referring STEMI patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Accessibility of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in primary care settings is limited. Referring patients to PCI-capable hospitals might increase cardiac events. Hence, fibrinolytic injection before referring patients to PCI-capable settings decreases cardiac events, however, the effect of fibrinolytic injection before the referral has not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to systematically review the effect of fibrinolytic injection before referring patients with STEMI to PCI-capable settings.

METHODS

A systematic search with Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google scholar, and PubMed was conducted. Studies conducted in patients with STEMI presented to non PCI-capable settings and compared fibrinolytic injection with no injection before referring patients to PCI-capable settings were included. The primary outcome was the composite outcomes of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model.

RESULTS

Of 912 articles, three RCTs and three non-RCTs were included. Based on RCTs, fibrinolytic injection before the referral has failed to decrease MACEs compared to non-fibrinolytic injection [relative risk (RR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89-1.57, p = 0.237]. Fibrinolytic injection has also failed to decrease mortality, re-infarction, and ischemic stroke. On the other hand, fibrinolytic injection was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In non PCI-capable settings, fibrinolytic injection before referring patients with STEMI to PCI-capable settings has no clinical benefit but could increase risk of major bleeding. Clinicians might more carefully consider whether fibrinolytic injection should be used in patients with STEMI before the referral.

Management Strategies and Outcomes of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Transferred After Receiving Fibrinolytic Therapy in the United States

Fibrinolytic therapy is still used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when the primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be provided in a timely fashion. Management strategies and outcomes in transferred fibrinolytic-treated STEMI patients have not been well assessed in real-world settings. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2012, we identified 18 814 patients with STEMI who received fibrinolytic therapy and were transferred to a different facility within 24 hours. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal bleeding, bleeding requiring transfusion, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), length of stay, and cost. The patients were divided into 3 groups: those who received medical therapy alone (n = 853; 4.5%), those who underwent coronary artery angiography without revascularization (n = 2573; 13.7%), and those who underwent coronary artery angiography with revascularization (n = 15 388; 81.8%). Rates of in-hospital mortality among the groups were 20% vs 6.6% vs 2.1%, respectively (P < 0.001); ICH was 8.5% vs 1.1% vs 0.6%, respectively (P < 0.001); and gastrointestinal bleeding was 1.1% vs 0.4% vs 0.4%, respectively (P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and ICH as the independent predictors of not performing coronary artery angiography and/or revascularization in patients with STEMI initially treated with fibrinolytic therapy. The majority of STEMI patients transferred after receiving fibrinolytic therapy undergo coronary angiography. However, notable numbers of patients do not receive revascularization, especially patients with cardiogenic shock and following a cardiac arrest.

Routine diversion of patients with STEMI to high-volume PCI centres: modelling the financial impact on referral hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To quantify possible revenue losses from proposed ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patient diversion policies for small hospitals that lack high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability status (ie, 'STEMI referral hospitals').

BACKGROUND

Negative financial impacts on STEMI referral hospitals have been discussed as an important barrier to implementing regional STEMI bypass/transfer protocols. However, there is little empirical data available that directly quantifies this potential financial impact.

METHODS

Using detailed financial charges from Florida hospital discharge data, we examined the potential negative financial impact on 112 STEMI referral hospitals from losing all inpatient STEMI revenue. The main outcome was projected revenue loss (PRL), defined as total annual patient with STEMI charges as a proportion of total annual charges for all patients. We hypothesised that for most community hospitals (>90%), STEMI revenue represented only a small fraction of total revenue (<1%). We further examined the financial impact of the 'worst case' scenario of loss of all acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (ie, chest pain) patients.

RESULTS

PRLs were $0.33 for every $100 of patient revenue statewide for STEMI and $1.73 for ACS. At the individual hospital level, the 90th centile PRL was $0.74 for STEMI and $2.77 for ACS. PRLs for STEMI were not greater in rural areas compared with major metropolitan areas. Hospital revenue centres that would be most impacted by loss of patients with STEMI were cardiology procedures and intensive care units.

CONCLUSIONS

Loss of patient with STEMI revenues would result in only a small financial impact on STEMI referral hospitals in Florida under proposed STEMI diversion/rapid transfer protocols. However, spillover loss of patients with ACS would increase revenue loss for many hospitals.

Reperfusion strategies in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a comprehensive review of contemporary management options

There are an estimated 500,000 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) events in the U.S. annually. Despite improvements in care, up to one-third of patients presenting with STEMI within 12 h of symptom onset still receive no reperfusion therapy acutely. Clinical studies indicate that speed of reperfusion after infarct onset may be more important than whether pharmacologic or mechanical intervention is used. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), when performed rapidly at high-volume centers, generally has superior efficacy to fibrinolysis, although fibrinolysis may be more suitable for many patients as an initial reperfusion strategy. Because up to 70% of STEMI patients present to hospitals without on-site PCI facilities, and prolonged door-to-balloon times due to inevitable transport delays commonly limit the benefit of PCI, the continued role and importance of the prompt, early use of fibrinolytic therapy may be underappreciated. Logistical complexities such as triage or transportation delays must be considered when a reperfusion strategy is selected, because prompt fibrinolysis may achieve greater benefit, especially if the fibrinolytic-to-PCI time delay associated with transfer exceeds approximately 1 h. Selection of a fibrinolytic requires consideration of several factors, including ease of dosing and combination with adjunctive therapies. Careful attention to these variables is critical to ensuring safe and rapid reperfusion, particularly in the prehospital setting. The emerging modality of pharmacoinvasive therapy, although controversial, seeks to combine the benefits of mechanical and pharmacologic reperfusion. Results from ongoing clinical trials will provide guidance regarding the utility of this strategy.