Emergency Chest Pain Center

Marwa A. Sabe MD, MPH , Frank J. Kaeberlein MD , Sharif A. Sabe MD, MA , Allyson Kelly BSN, MBA , Tracy Summerfield , Ahmed A. Sabe MD
{"title":"Emergency Chest Pain Center","authors":"Marwa A. Sabe MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Frank J. Kaeberlein MD ,&nbsp;Sharif A. Sabe MD, MA ,&nbsp;Allyson Kelly BSN, MBA ,&nbsp;Tracy Summerfield ,&nbsp;Ahmed A. Sabe MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred treatment for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and shorter door-to-balloon time (D2B) is associated with lower mortality. We implemented a catheterization laboratory within the emergency department (ED) as a novel strategy to reduce D2B.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The purpose of this paper was to compare D2B and mortality in STEMI patients presenting to ED vs standard catheterization labs at a community hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We prospectively reviewed consecutive patients presenting with STEMI to our institution between 1998 and 2011 and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoints were D2B and time to death. A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess the relationship between catheterization lab location and D2B. The relationship between D2B and mortality was examined using a Cox proportional hazards model.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 1,053 STEMI patients (553 in ED vs 500 in standard catheterization labs). Both groups had similar age, sex, race, diabetes, left main disease, and Killip class on presentation. Standard catheterization lab patients were more likely to have left ventricular ejection fraction &lt;40% (11% vs 6.5%). D2B was shorter in ED vs standard cath lab patients (54 vs 83 minutes, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). ED catheterization lab patients were more likely to have &lt;30-minute D2B (17% vs &lt;1%, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). After covariate adjustment, ED catheterization lab patients had lower 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.99), 1-year (adj HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.91), and 10-year mortality (adj HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.29-0.53) than standard catheterization lab patients.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Implementation of an ED catheterization lab is a feasible strategy which may reduce D2B and STEMI mortality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73527,"journal":{"name":"JACC advances","volume":"4 6","pages":"Article 101774"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JACC advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772963X25001929","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred treatment for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and shorter door-to-balloon time (D2B) is associated with lower mortality. We implemented a catheterization laboratory within the emergency department (ED) as a novel strategy to reduce D2B.

Objectives

The purpose of this paper was to compare D2B and mortality in STEMI patients presenting to ED vs standard catheterization labs at a community hospital.

Methods

We prospectively reviewed consecutive patients presenting with STEMI to our institution between 1998 and 2011 and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoints were D2B and time to death. A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess the relationship between catheterization lab location and D2B. The relationship between D2B and mortality was examined using a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

We included 1,053 STEMI patients (553 in ED vs 500 in standard catheterization labs). Both groups had similar age, sex, race, diabetes, left main disease, and Killip class on presentation. Standard catheterization lab patients were more likely to have left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (11% vs 6.5%). D2B was shorter in ED vs standard cath lab patients (54 vs 83 minutes, P < 0.001). ED catheterization lab patients were more likely to have <30-minute D2B (17% vs <1%, P < 0.001). After covariate adjustment, ED catheterization lab patients had lower 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.99), 1-year (adj HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.91), and 10-year mortality (adj HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.29-0.53) than standard catheterization lab patients.

Conclusions

Implementation of an ED catheterization lab is a feasible strategy which may reduce D2B and STEMI mortality.
急救胸痛中心
背景:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗是急性st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的首选治疗方法,较短的门到球囊时间(D2B)与较低的死亡率相关。我们在急诊科(ED)内实施导管实验室,作为减少D2B的新策略。目的:本文的目的是比较在ED就诊的STEMI患者与在社区医院标准导管室就诊的患者的D2B和死亡率。方法我们前瞻性地回顾了1998年至2011年间在我院连续就诊的STEMI患者,并接受了初级经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。主要终点为D2B和死亡时间。采用多变量线性回归模型评估置管实验室位置与D2B的关系。采用Cox比例风险模型检验D2B与死亡率之间的关系。结果我们纳入了1053例STEMI患者(553例在ED, 500例在标准导管实验室)。两组具有相似的年龄、性别、种族、糖尿病、左主干疾病和基利普等级。标准导管实验室患者更可能有40%的左室射血分数(11% vs 6.5%)。与标准导管室患者相比,ED患者的D2B时间更短(54分钟vs 83分钟,P <;0.001)。ED导管实验室患者更有可能发生30分钟的D2B (17% vs 1%, P <;0.001)。经协变量调整后,ED导尿患者的30天死亡率(校正风险比[adj HR]: 0.54, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.29-0.99)、1年死亡率(adj HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.37-0.91)和10年死亡率(adj HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.29-0.53)均低于标准导尿患者。结论建立ED导尿室是降低D2B和STEMI死亡率的可行策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JACC advances
JACC advances Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信