Factors Associated With Ineligibility for PCI Differ Between Inpatient and Outpatient ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: Without early revascularization, both inpatient and outpatient STEMIs have poor outcomes. Reasons for denying PCI for STEMI, however, remain uncertain. This single-center retrospective cohort study compares factors and outcomes associated with ineligibility for PCI between inpatients and outpatients following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: A total of 1,759 STEMI patients between June 2009 and January 2015 were assessed. Individual medical records were reviewed to obtain reasons for PCI ineligibility for STEMI patients who did not receive reperfusion therapy. RESULTS: Compared to outpatients with STEMI (n = 1,688), inpatients (n = 71) were less likely to receive coronary angiography (60.6% vs 95.9%; P < 0.001) or PCI (50.7% vs 80.9%; P < 0.001), with longer ECG/door to first device activation times (97 [78, 131] vs 63 [49, 78] minutes; P < 0.001). When coronary angiography was performed, however, similar rates of PCI and procedural success were seen in both groups. Principal contraindication for PCI was risk of bleeding within the inpatient population and complex coronary artery disease within the outpatient population. Total in-hospital mortality was higher in inpatient STEMIs compared to outpatients (42.2% vs 10.0%; P < 0.001), but lower for patients eligible for PCI in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for PCI ineligibility differ between inpatient and outpatient STEMIs. Inpatients have increased risks of bleeding, lower coronary angiography and PCI use, and higher in-hospital mortality. Especially for inpatients, specific PCI STEMI protocols that anticipate and overcome types of ineligibility and delay for cardiac catheterization may improve outcomes.

Outcomes of volume-overloaded cardiovascular patients treated with ultrafiltration.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration (UF) can rapidly and predictably remove extracellular and intravascular fluid volume. To date, assessment of UF in patients with cardiovascular disease has been confined to short- and medium-term studies in patients with a principal diagnosis of acute heart failure. METHODS: In-hospital and long-term outcomes were reviewed from consecutive patients with cardiovascular disorders and recognized pulmonary and systemic volume overload treated with a simplified UF system with the capability for peripheral venovenous access. Trained abstractors reviewed both paper and electronic medical records. Patients with a principal diagnosis of heart failure versus other primary hospital discharge diagnoses were identified according to International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision standards by independent coders. RESULTS: For a period of 43 months, 100 patients (76 male/24 female, 65 +/- 14.0 years of age, systolic dysfunction 64%) were treated with UF during 130 hospitalizations. Baseline systolic blood pressure was 119 +/- 23 mm Hg. Before UF, 53% were receiving intravenous vasoactive therapy. By using UF, 7.1 +/- 3.9 L of ultrafiltrate were removed during 2.0 +/- 1.2 treatments per hospitalization. Baseline creatinine was 1.8 +/- 0.8 and 1.9 +/- 1.2 (not significant) at discharge. Of the 15 in-hospital deaths, 14 occurred during the initial hospitalization. Left ventricular dysfunction was related to 13 (87%) of the 15 deaths; no deaths were related to UF use. In hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of heart failure (n = 79), in-hospital mortality was 7.6% compared with an ADHERE risk tree estimated mortality of 7.5%. Multivariate logistic regression identified a trend for decreased systolic blood pressure to predict patient initial hospitalization mortality (P = .06). Kaplan-Meier survivals for all patients were 71% at 1 year and 67% at 2 years. Cox regression found decreased systolic blood pressure as a predictor of long-term mortality (P = .025). Total volume of ultrafiltrate removed, ejection fraction, history of coronary artery disease, creatinine clearance, gender, age, and principal diagnosis of heart failure were not significantly associated with long-term mortality. CONCLUSION: This series extends the spectrum of patients previously reported to be treated with UF. Despite marked volume overload, UF-treated patients with a principal diagnosis of heart failure had inpatient outcomes similar to the ADHERE registry. UF should be considered for a broad range of patients who present with volume overload.

Measure patient harm in real time.

A California healthcare system incorporates clinical information technology to mine data for adverse events.