Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction--first year's experience of a tertiary referral centre in the UK.

This study evaluated the first year's experience of a large interventional centre in the UK after a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) programme that runs 24 hours a day and seven days a week was started. Workload, patient outcome, length of stay, and effect on the remainder of the interventional service were analysed. The primary PCI service for a mainly urban population of 800,000 was started in April 2005. All relevant characteristics, details of procedures, outcome, and other data on quality of care were collected and entered prospectively onto a computerised database. Data were analysed with SPSS (version 13.0). Over a 12-month period, 305 patients were diagnosed with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), of whom 259 (85%) were accepted for primary PCI. Median door-to-balloon time was 98 minutes, which decreased from 106 minutes in the first six months to 93 minutes in the second six months (p < 0.005). In-hospital mortality was 4.5% and 30-day mortality was 4.9%. Median length of stay was three days, which was reduced from the six days previously reported after thrombolysis. Waiting times for other acute and elective PCI procedures did not increase after initiation of the primary PCI programme. Primary PCI can be delivered successfully in a setting in the UK with low mortality and reduced length of stay and without a negative impact on other interventional services.

[1]  David P Miller,et al.  Hospital Delays in Reperfusion for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Implications When Selecting a Reperfusion Strategy , 2006, Circulation.

[2]  L. Wilkins ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2004 .

[3]  C. Grines,et al.  Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Every Patient with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: What Stands in the Way? , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Felix Zijlstra,et al.  Prognostic Assessment of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Angioplasty: Implications for Early Discharge , 2004, Circulation.

[5]  R. Cydulka,et al.  A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction , 2004 .

[6]  E. Bonnefoy,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials , 2003, The Lancet.

[8]  R. Califf,et al.  Early discharge in the thrombolytic era: an analysis of criteria for uncomplicated infarction from the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) trial. , 1996, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  R. Califf,et al.  Identification of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Suitable for Early Hospital Discharge After Aggressive Interventional Therapy: Results From the Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry , 1991, Circulation.

[10]  E. Topol,et al.  A randomized controlled trial of hospital discharge three days after myocardial infarction in the era of reperfusion. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  M. Aschermann,et al.  Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial--PRAGUE-2. , 2003, European heart journal.

[12]  H. S,et al.  Early Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock , 2000 .