Off-hour admission and outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have suggested that patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are admitted during off-hours (weekends, nights and holidays) have higher mortality when compared with patients admitted during regular hours. METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients with AMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-STEMI) who were treated with percutaneous coronary interventions from January 1998 to June 2010 at an academic medical center. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between off-hour admission and clinical outcomes adjusted for demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: There were 3,422 and 2,664 patients with AMI admitted during off-hours and regular hours, respectively. Patients admitted during off-hours were more likely to have STEMI (56% vs 48%, P < .001), have cardiogenic shock at presentation (6% vs 4%, P = .002), and develop shock after presentation (6% vs 5%, P = .004). After multivariable analyses, off-hour admission was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.84-1.49), 30-day mortality (OR 1.12, 0.87-1.45), or 30-day readmissions (OR 1.01, 0.84-1.20) but was significantly associated with composite major complications and any of emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and gastrointestinal/retroperitoneal/intracranial bleeding (OR 1.27, 1.05-1.55, P = .015). There was no significant time trend in the adjusted mortality difference between off-hours and regular hours. The results were not different between STEMI and non-STEMI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were admitted during off-hours did not have higher mortality or readmission rates as compared with ones admitted during regular hours at an academic medical center.

Pharmacoinvasive and Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the Mayo Clinic STEMI Network).

The effectiveness of a pharmacoinvasive strategy consisting of fibrinolysis and transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to primary PCI (PPCI) in patients presenting to non-PCI-capable hospitals with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is not well defined. We analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic STEMI database of patients treated with a pharmacoinvasive strategy (favored in those presenting early after symptom onset) or PPCI in a regional STEMI network from 2004 to 2012. A total of 364 and 1,337 patients were included in the pharmacoinvasive and PPCI groups, respectively. Patients in the PPCI group were older and more frequently had cardiogenic shock at the time of presentation (12.1% vs 7.7%, p = 0.018). Death from any cause occurred in 58 (16%) and 314 (23%) patients in the pharmacoinvasive and PPCI groups, respectively (median follow-up 3.9 and 4.4 years, respectively). In multivariate analyses adjusting for age, gender, and other variables for which the 2 groups differed at baseline, there was no significant difference between the 2 strategies for 30-day (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.21) or overall mortality (hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12). Shorter door-to-balloon time was associated with increased effectiveness of PPCI (p for trend = 0.015), but there was no difference between the 2 strategies even when considering only the patients with door-to-balloon time in the lowest quartile. In conclusion, fibrinolysis followed by transfer for PCI represents a reasonable alternative when PPCI is not readily available especially in patients presenting early after symptom onset.