Van de Werf Frans, Gore Joel M, Avezum Alvaro, Gulba Dietrich C, Goodman Shaun G, Budaj Andrzej, Brieger David, White Kami, Fox Keith A A, Eagle Kim A, Kennelly Brian M
Universitair Ziekenhuis Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium 3000.
BMJ. 2005 Feb 26;330(7489):441. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38335.390718.82. Epub 2005 Jan 21.
To investigate the relation between access to a cardiac catheterisation laboratory and clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with suspected acute coronary syndrome.
Prospective, multinational, observational registry.
Patients enrolled in 106 hospitals in 14 countries between April 1999 and March 2003.
28,825 patients aged > or = 18 years.
Use of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery, death, infarction after discharge, stroke, or major bleeding.
Most patients (77%) across all regions (United States, Europe, Argentina and Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) were admitted to hospitals with catheterisation facilities. As expected, the availability of a catheterisation laboratory was associated with more frequent use of percutaneous coronary intervention (41% v 3.9%, P < 0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft (7.1% v 0.7%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, medical history, and geographical region there were no significant differences in the risk of early death between patients in hospitals with or without catheterisation facilities (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30, for death in hospital; hazard ratio 1.05, 0.93 to 1.18, for death at 30 days). The risk of death at six months was significantly higher in patients first admitted to hospitals with catheterisation facilities (hazard ratio 1.14, 1.03 to 1.26), as was the risk of bleeding complications in hospital (odds ratio 1.94, 1.57 to 2.39) and stroke (odds ratio 1.53, 1.10 to 2.14).
These findings support the current strategy of directing patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome to the nearest hospital with acute care facilities, irrespective of the availability of a catheterisation laboratory, and argue against early routine transfer of these patients to tertiary care hospitals with interventional facilities.
研究疑似急性冠脉综合征住院患者使用心导管实验室与临床结局之间的关系。
前瞻性、多国、观察性登记研究。
1999年4月至2003年3月期间,来自14个国家106家医院的登记患者。
28825名年龄≥18岁的患者。
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术的使用情况、死亡、出院后梗死、中风或大出血。
所有地区(美国、欧洲、阿根廷和巴西、澳大利亚、新西兰和加拿大)的大多数患者(77%)被收治于配备导管设施的医院。正如预期的那样,心导管实验室的可及性与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的更频繁使用相关(41%对3.9%,P<0.001)以及冠状动脉旁路移植术(7.1%对0.7%,P<0.001)。在对基线特征、病史和地理区域进行调整后,配备或未配备导管设施的医院患者早期死亡风险无显著差异(住院死亡的比值比为1.13,95%置信区间为0.98至1.30;30天死亡的风险比为1.05,0.93至1.18)。首次入住配备导管设施医院的患者六个月时的死亡风险显著更高(风险比为1.14,1.03至1.26),住院出血并发症风险(比值比为1.94,1.57至2.39)和中风风险(比值比为1.53,1.10至2.14)也是如此。
这些发现支持当前将疑似急性冠脉综合征患者转诊至最近的具备急症护理设施医院的策略,而不论是否有心导管实验室,并反对将这些患者早期常规转诊至具备介入设施的三级医院。