Impact of access to hospitals with catheterization facilities in the second Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2)

ObjectivesIt is currently unclear whether acute coronary syndrome patients who access hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without an on-site percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have better outcomes in real-life clinical practice. Methods and resultsThis 9-month prospective study was carried out in six Arabian Gulf countries. Patients in hospitals with catheterization facilities [20/65 hospitals; 3615/6847 (52.8%) patients] were more likely to show evidence of cardiovascular risk factors (P<0.001) and more likely to undergo revascularization procedures that were mostly performed (≥80%) in low-risk and intermediate-risk patients. Patients in these centres experienced significantly higher rates of medical therapies and shorter door-to-needle times [median (IQR): 33 (40) vs. 43.5 (43) min, P<0.001]; 14.1% had primary PCI. They also had less in-hospital recurrent ischaemia, recurrent myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and stroke, but more cardiogenic shock and major bleeding, and they had similar adjusted mortality rates in-hospital [odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.27] and at 30-day (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91–1.36) and 1-year (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89–1.27) follow-ups. ConclusionAccess to hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without on-site PCI, was associated with a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and recurrent ischaemia, but not mortality. Further efforts are required to target revascularization procedures for higher risk patients as well as to widely implement primary PCI programmes.

[1]  W. Almahmeed,et al.  Baseline characteristics, management practices, and long-term outcomes of Middle Eastern patients in the Second Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2) , 2012, Annals of Saudi medicine.

[2]  C. Held,et al.  Association between adoption of evidence-based treatment and survival for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. , 2011, JAMA.

[3]  M. Zubaid,et al.  Utilization and Determinants of In-Hospital Cardiac Catheterization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome From the Middle East , 2010, Angiology.

[4]  B. Forge.  The “Acute coronary syndromes: consensus recommendations for translating knowledge into action” position statement is based on a false premise , 2010, The Medical journal of Australia.

[5]  Differences in patient survival after acute myocardial infarction by hospital capability of performing percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for regionalization. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  S. Grundy,et al.  Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International As , 2009, Circulation.

[7]  J. Tu,et al.  A survey of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction in Canadian hospitals. , 2008, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[8]  N. Danchin,et al.  Outcomes of myocardial infarction in hospitals with percutaneous coronary intervention facilities. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[9]  A. Yan,et al.  Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better. , 2007, European heart journal.

[10]  Á. Avezum,et al.  Access to catheterisation facilities in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome: multinational registry study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  J. Brophy,et al.  Primary Angioplasty and Thrombolysis Are Both Reasonable Options in Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  J. Deckers,et al.  Determinants of use and outcomes of invasive coronary procedures in acute coronary syndromes: results from ENACT. , 2003, European heart journal.

[13]  R. Califf,et al.  Impact of on-site cardiac interventional facilities on management and outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2003, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[14]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction : a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials , 2022 .

[15]  P. Austin,et al.  Long-term MI outcomes at hospitals with or without on-site revascularization. , 2001, JAMA.

[16]  W. Rogers,et al.  Treatment and outcome of myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without invasive capability. Investigators in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  F. Ragmin.  Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study , 1999, The Lancet.

[18]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities :impact on long-term costs and outcomes. , 1998, Circulation.

[19]  W. Weaver,et al.  Long-term Outcome in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Admitted to Hospitals With and Without On-site Cardiac Catheterization Facilities , 1997 .

[20]  W. Weaver,et al.  The association between on-site cardiac catheterization facilities and the use of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction. Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Investigators. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.