Minimizing transfer time to an ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-receiving center: a modified Delphi consensus

Effects of Door-In to Door-Out Time on Mortality Among ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Transferred for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ― Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ―

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is now widely accepted. Recent guidelines have focused on total ischemic time, because shorter total ischemic time is associated with a more favorable prognosis. The door-in to door-out (DIDO) time, defined as time from arrival at a non-PCI-capable hospital to leaving for a PCI-capable hospital, may affect STEMI patient prognosis. However, a relevant meta-analysis is lacking.

Methods and Results: We searched PubMed for clinical studies comparing short-term (30-day and in-hospital) mortality rates of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with DIDO times of ≤30 vs. >30 min. Two investigators independently screened the search results and extracted the data. Random effects estimators with weights calculated by the inverse variance method were used to determine pooled risk ratios. The search retrieved 1,260 studies; of these, 2 retrospective cohort studies (15,596 patients) were analyzed. In the DIDO time ≤30 and >30 min groups, the primary endpoint (i.e., in-hospital or 30-day mortality) occurred for 51 of 1,794 (2.8%) and 831 of 13,802 (6.0%) patients, respectively. The incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the DIDO time ≤30 min group (odds ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.34–0.60).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a DIDO time ≤30 min is associated with a lower short-term mortality rate. However, further larger systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to validate our findings.

A Multimodal Intervention to Improve the Quality and Safety of Interhospital Care Transitions for Nontraumatic Intracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Regionalization of care has increased interhospital transfers (IHTs) of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) to specialized centers yet exposes patients to the latent risks inherent to IHT. The researchers examined how a multimodal quality improvement intervention affected quality and safety measures for patients with ICH or SAH exposed to IHT.

METHODS

Pre and post analyses of timeliness, effectiveness, and communication outcome measures were performed for patients transferred to an urban, academic center with nontraumatic ICH/SAH following implementation of a multimodal intervention. Intervention components included clinical practice guideline dissemination, IHT process redesign, electronic patient arrival notification, electronic imaging exchange, and electronic health record improvements. Three months of preintervention outcomes were compared to six months of postintervention outcomes to assess impact and sustainability of the intervention; t-tests and chi-square tests were used to compare continuous and proportional outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

The IHT study population included 106 patients (37 preintervention, 69 postintervention). Significant improvements were observed in timeliness outcomes, including emergency department (ED) time to admission order (preintervention median: 66 minutes vs. postintervention: 33 minutes, p = 0.008), ED boarding time (preintervention median: 223 minutes vs. postintervention: 93 minutes, p = 0.001), and ED length of stay (preintervention median: 300 minutes vs. postintervention: 150 minutes, p ≤ 0.0001). Verbal communication between ED and neurocritical care clinicians prior to IHT improved from 40.0% preintervention to 90.9% postintervention.

CONCLUSION

Application of scripted quality improvement interventions as part of the IHT process is feasible and effective at improving the timeliness of care and communication of critical information in patients with nontraumatic ICH/SAH.

Association Between Hospital Practices and Door-in-door-out Time in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines suggest a "door-in-door-out" (DIDO) time of 30 minutes or shorter for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who arrive at a STEMI referral hospital and are transferred to a STEMI-receiving center for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Experts previously identified 18 system practices as critical for reducing DIDO times. The objective of this study was to describe how frequently these critical practices are used and to determine whether their use was associated with shorter DIDO times.

METHODS

We surveyed 18 STEMI referral hospitals for 4 STEMI-receiving centers regarding their use of these 18 practices. The median number used was 14 practices (interquartile range 12-15). We then evaluated their association with DIDO times in all patients (n = 93) transferred from these STEMI referral hospitals to the 4 STEMI-receiving centers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

RESULTS

In univariate linear regression analyses, system-wide quality improvement programs with leaders in the emergency medical services agencies and STEMI referral hospitals were associated with shorter DIDO times (P < 0.001 for all). Overall use of system practices was not associated with DIDO times (P = 0.143). The majority (76%, 95% confidence interval: 66%-85%) of DIDO times did not meet the 30-minute goal.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the difficulty in achieving the 30-minute DIDO goal and the need for continued focus on strategies for reducing DIDO time, including system-wide quality improvement programs.

Approaches to the field recognition of potential thrombectomy candidates

Systems of care for acute ischemic stroke are being challenged to implement processes that ensure rapid access to endovascular thrombectomy. Optimizing existing regionalized stroke thrombolysis programs for endovascular thrombectomy will require accurate field recognition of treatment candidates. We begin with a review of the development of early clinical tests for ischemic stroke, illustrating challenges relevant to future field tests for large vessel occlusion. Second, we discuss aspects of diagnosis, eligibility, feasibility, and system organization that are potentially relevant to the development and implementation of field tests and diversion criteria. These considerations may influence the choice and parametrization of field tests in individual jurisdictions. Third, we review the literature evaluating eight clinical tests for the field identification of probable large vessel occlusion. All candidate tests include evaluations for focal weakness, and six evaluate for cortical signs such as aphasia or gaze deviation. Most appear roughly comparable to the NIH Stroke Scale, but direct comparison between studies is inappropriate because of major methodological differences. Finally, we discuss our jurisdiction’s approach to the field recognition of thrombectomy candidates. We contextualize diagnostic, eligibility, and system considerations within distinct metro and rural environments and propose a screen-and-consult model for the rural setting.