Background
Shortening the pain‐to‐balloon (P2B) and door‐to‐balloon (D2B) intervals in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is essential in order to limit myocardial damage. We investigated whether direct admission of PPCI‐treated patients with STEMI to the catheterization laboratory, bypassing the emergency department, expedites reperfusion and improves prognosis.
Methods and Results
Consecutive PPCI‐treated patients with STEMI included in the ACSIS (Acute Coronary Syndrome in Israel Survey), a prospective nationwide multicenter registry, were divided into patients admitted directly or via the emergency department. The impact of the P2B and D2B intervals on mortality was compared between groups by logistic regression and propensity score matching. Of the 4839 PPCI‐treated patients with STEMI, 1174 were admitted directly and 3665 via the emergency department. Respective median P2B and D2B were shorter among the directly admitted patients with STEMI (160 and 35 minutes) compared with those admitted via the emergency department (210 and 75 minutes,
P
<0.001). Decreased mortality was observed with direct admission at 1 and 2 years and at the end of follow‐up (median 6.4 years,
P
<0.001). Survival advantage persisted after adjustment by logistic regression and propensity matching. P2B, but not D2B, impacted survival (
P
<0.001).
Conclusions
Direct admission of PPCI‐treated patients with STEMI decreased mortality by shortening P2B and D2B intervals considerably. However, P2B, but not D2B, impacted mortality. It seems that the D2B interval has reached its limit of effect. Thus, all efforts should be extended to shorten P2B by educating the public to activate early the emergency medical services to bypass the emergency department and allow timely PPCI for the best outcome.
Background
The treatment of myopericarditis is different than that of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, since their clinical presentation is frequently similar it may be difficult to distinguish between these entities despite a disparate underlying pathogenesis. Myopericarditis is primarily an inflammatory disease associated with high C-reactive protein (CRP) and relatively low elevated troponin concentrations, while AMI is characterized by the opposite. We hypothesized that evaluation of the CRP/troponin ratio on presentation to the emergency department could improve the differentiation between these two related clinical entities whose therapy is different. Such differentiation should facilitate triage to appropriate and expeditious therapy.
Methods
We evaluated the CRP/troponin ratio on presentation among patients consecutively included in a large single center registry that included 1898 consecutive patients comprising 1025 ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, 518 Non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients, and 355 patients diagnosed on discharge as myopericarditis. CRP and troponin were sampled on admission in all patients and their ratio was assessed against discharge diagnosis. ROC analysis of the CRP/troponin ratios evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of myopericarditis against all AMI, STEMI, and NSTEMI patients.
Results
Median admission CRP/troponin ratios were 84, 65, and 436 mg×ml/liter×ng in STEMI, NSTEMI and myopericarditis groups, respectively (p<0.001) demonstrating good differentiating capability. The Receiver-operator-curve of admission CRP/troponin ratio for diagnosis of myopericarditis against all AMI, STEMI, and NSTEMI patients yielded an area-under-the curve of 0.74, 0.73, and 0.765, respectively. CRP/troponin ratio>500 resulted in specificity exceeding 85%, and for a ratio>1000, specificity>92%.
Conclusion
The CRP/troponin ratio can serve as an effective tool to differentiate between myopericarditis and AMI. In the appropriate clinical context, the CRP/troponin ratio may preclude further evaluation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.