Developing primary PCI as a national reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the UK experience.

In 2004 in the United Kingdom (UK), the infrastructural and organisational changes required for implementation of primary PCI for treatment of STEMI were unclear, and the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of a changed reperfusion strategy had not been tested. In addition, any proposed change was to be made against the background of a previously successful in-hospital thrombolysis strategy, with plans for greater use of pre-hospital administration. A prospective study (the "National Infarct Angioplasty Project - NIAP") was set up to collect information on all patients presenting with STEMI in selected regions in the UK over a one year period (April 2005 - March 2006). The key findings from the NIAP project included that PPCI could be delivered within acceptable treatment times in a variety of geographical settings and that the shortest treatment times were achieved with direct admission to a PPCI-capable cardiac catheter laboratory. The transformation from a dominant lytic strategy to one of PPCI across the UK was achieved both swiftly and consistently with the help of 28 cardiac networks. By the second quarter of 2011, 94% of those STEMI patients in England who received reperfusion treatment were being treated by PPCI compared with 46% during the third quarter of 2008.

Developing a rapid access chest pain clinic: qualitative studies of patients' needs and experiences.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to understand the needs and experiences of rapid access chest pain clinic attenders and to determine the acceptability and effectiveness of simple procedural changes. METHODS: Two qualitative studies of clinic attenders before and after procedural changes which were guided by the first study. RESULTS: Study 1: Patients wanted to be reassured, by knowing what was causing their pain, understanding the cause, and feeling able to help themselves. Often, these needs were not met, and uncertainties left some patients feeling ill-equipped to help themselves. Communication problems were identified. Study 2: The changes were acceptable to patients, and almost all were reassured. Most valued receiving extra verbal and written advice and information. Many felt more aware of cardiac risk factors and intended to change their lifestyle. CONCLUSION: There were clear opportunities for improvements in care. Changes in procedures helped patients to understand their pain, to practice self-management, and to consider altering their lifestyle.