Pipilis Athanasios, Andrikopoulos Georgios, Lekakis John, Kalantzi Kallirroi, Kitsiou Anastasia, Toli Konstantina, Floros Dimitrios, Gaita Dan, Karalis Ioannis, Dragomanovits Spyridon, Kalogeropoulos Petros, Synetos Andreas, Koutsogiannis Nikolaos, Stougiannos Pavlos, Antonakoudis Chariton, Goudevenos John
Hygeia Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009 Feb;16(1):85-90. doi: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e32831e954e.
To compare the treatment and outcomes of myocardial infarction patients in hospitals with and without catheterization laboratory.
The Hellenic Infarction Observation Study was a countrywide registry of acute myocardial infarction, conducted during 2005-2006. The registry enrolled 1840 patients with myocardial infarction from 31 hospitals with a proportional representation of all types of hospitals and of all geographical areas. Out of these patients, 645 (35%) were admitted in 11 hospitals with and 1195 (65%) in 20 hospitals without catheterization laboratory. Patients admitted in hospitals with catheterization laboratory in comparison with patients admitted in hospitals without were younger (66+/-14 vs. 68+/-13, P<0.004) with less diabetes (27 vs. 33%, P<0.001), but without other baseline differences (female 27 vs. 25%, prior myocardial infarction 20 vs. 17%, Killip class>1 22 vs. 23%). Reperfusion rates for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were 67% (43% lytic, 24% primary percutaneous coronary interventions) versus 56% (55% lytic, 1% percutaneous coronary interventions; P<0.01). In-hospital outcomes in hospitals with versus in hospitals without laboratory were: mortality 6.5 versus 8.3% (NS), stroke 2.2 versus 1.1% (NS), major bleeding 1.1 versus 0.6% (NS), and heart failure 11 versus 16% (P<0.01). In multivariate regression analysis, being admitted in a hospital without catheterization laboratory was not an independent predictor of increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio=1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.93, P=0.505).
Although the majority of acute myocardial infarction patients was admitted in hospitals without catheterization laboratory, these patients do not have a survival disadvantage, provided they are treated with lytic therapy, medical secondary prevention drugs, and eventual revascularization according to current guidelines.
比较有和没有导管实验室的医院中心肌梗死患者的治疗情况及预后。
希腊心肌梗死观察研究是一项在2005年至2006年期间进行的全国性急性心肌梗死登记研究。该登记研究纳入了来自31家医院的1840例心肌梗死患者,各类医院和所有地理区域均按比例纳入。在这些患者中,645例(35%)被收治于11家有导管实验室的医院,1195例(65%)被收治于20家没有导管实验室的医院。与收治于没有导管实验室医院的患者相比,收治于有导管实验室医院的患者更年轻(66±14岁对68±13岁,P<0.004),糖尿病患者更少(27%对33%,P<0.001),但在其他基线特征方面无差异(女性27%对25%,既往心肌梗死20%对17%,Killip分级>1级22%对23%)。ST段抬高型心肌梗死的再灌注率分别为67%(43%为溶栓治疗,24%为直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗)和56%(55%为溶栓治疗,1%为经皮冠状动脉介入治疗;P<0.01)。有导管实验室的医院与没有导管实验室的医院相比,院内预后情况如下:死亡率6.5%对8.3%(无统计学差异),卒中2.2%对1.1%(无统计学差异),大出血1.1%对0.6%(无统计学差异),心力衰竭11%对16%(P<0.01)。在多因素回归分析中,收治于没有导管实验室的医院并非院内死亡率增加的独立预测因素(比值比=1.18,95%置信区间:0.72-1.93,P=0.505)。
尽管大多数急性心肌梗死患者被收治于没有导管实验室的医院,但只要按照当前指南接受溶栓治疗、二级预防药物治疗以及最终的血运重建治疗,这些患者并无生存劣势。