Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Medical Research Collaborating Center, Biomedical Research Institution, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Cardiology, Inha University Hospital, School of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Korea.
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0255839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255839. eCollection 2021.
Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are preferred over onsite thrombolysis when provided expeditiously. On the other hand, its benefit has not been evaluated in a real-world situation. This study examined the effects of IHT on the short- and long-term mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and compared the reperfusion treatments and resources between the referring and receiving hospitals.
Patients newly diagnosed with AMI and admitted to hospital were selected from the national health insurance database from 2004 to 2018. The 30-day and one-year mortality in the transferred and non-transferred patients were estimated and compared using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for confounding bias.
Of the 258,291 participants, 10,158 were transferred to one or more hospitals. IHT was more likely to occur to older or more comorbid people, patients in rural areas, and those whose insurance was medical aid. The 30-day and one-year mortality of the non-IHT group was 9.7% and 15.8%, respectively, whereas the figure was 11.4% and 20.5% in the IHT group. After balancing the baseline characteristics, the transferred patients were 1.12 (95% CI: 1.06-1.20) and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.20-1.31) times more likely to die during the subsequent 30 days and one year, respectively, than those treated solely at the presenting hospital. In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the hazard ratios of the 30-day and 1-year mortality were 1.14 (95% CI: 0.97-1.35) and 1.31 (95% CI: 1.15-1.49) in the transferred patients after balancing cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. On-site thrombolysis was rarely performed in the referring hospitals.
Patients transferred for the treatment of AMI experienced higher short- and long-term mortality. Therefore, onsite thrombolysis and the estimated time delay to PCI should be considered in regional hospitals to reduce mortality with the organization of STEMI treatment networks.
当能够迅速提供服务时,医院间转移(IHT)和直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)优先于院内溶栓。另一方面,其在真实情况下的益处尚未得到评估。本研究检查了 IHT 对急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者短期和长期死亡率的影响,并比较了转诊医院和接收医院的再灌注治疗和资源。
从 2004 年至 2018 年,从国家健康保险数据库中选择新诊断为 AMI 并住院的患者。使用稳定的逆概率治疗加权法估计和比较转移和未转移患者的 30 天和 1 年死亡率,以纠正混杂偏差。
在 258291 名参与者中,有 10158 人被转移到一家或多家医院。IHT 更可能发生在年龄较大或合并症较多的人群、农村地区的人群以及医疗保险为医疗救助的人群中。非 IHT 组的 30 天和 1 年死亡率分别为 9.7%和 15.8%,而 IHT 组的死亡率分别为 11.4%和 20.5%。在平衡基线特征后,转移患者在随后的 30 天和 1 年内死亡的风险分别是仅在就诊医院接受治疗的患者的 1.12 倍(95%CI:1.06-1.20)和 1.25 倍(95%CI:1.20-1.31)。在 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)中,在平衡心源性休克和心脏骤停后,转移患者的 30 天和 1 年死亡率的风险比分别为 1.14(95%CI:0.97-1.35)和 1.31(95%CI:1.15-1.49)。院内溶栓在转诊医院很少进行。
因 AMI 治疗而转移的患者经历了更高的短期和长期死亡率。因此,应考虑在区域医院进行院内溶栓和估计的 PCI 延迟时间,以通过组织 STEMI 治疗网络降低死亡率。