Login | Users Online: 341  
Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size   
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 251-255

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention facility hospitals and easy access can affect the outcomes of ST.segment elevation myocardial infarction patients

King Abdulaziz Cardiac Center, College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohammed Ali Balghith
King Abdulaziz Cardiac Center, College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, P.O. Box: 22490, Riyadh, 11426
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and Permissions

Background: The reperfusion therapy using primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is known to give a better result than fibrinolytic therapy. The fast access to PPCI will improve hospital outcome. We believe that patient access to PPCI facility would have improved due to enhanced public awareness and expanding evidenced-based health provision. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study to analyze and compare data for STEMI patients. Patients were transferred to our hospital during the year 2010. Group l comprised 223 patients. Group 2 comprised 288 patients. Group 2 patients were those treated between August 2014 and August 2015. We compared their demographic and baseline characteristics, patients' access to the hospital, reasons for no access, and hospital mortality for the two groups. Results: Among the 288 patients in Group 2, 247 patients (85%) were males with an average age of 57 years, 49% were diabetics, 48% were hypertensive, 48% were smokers, and 27% were obese. These were not different in Group 1. In Group 2, 164 patients (57%) only had access to PPCI compared to 56% in Group 1 (P = 0.536-NS). In G2, the main reasons for no PPCI were late presentation in 47% versus 53% in Group 1; P = 0.34 NS. In Group 2, 27% were due to thrombolysis versus 17% in Group 1 (P = 0.11 NS). Hospital mortality in Group 2 was 4% in those treated with PPCI compared to 2.3% in Group 1 (P = 0.522-NS). Mortality in patients who did not receive PPCI in Group 2 was 8% compared to 11.3% in Group 1 (P = 0.49-NS). Females in Group 2 have about 3 times higher mortality. Patients treated for STEMI in the last 12 months at King Abdulaziz Cardiac Center still have relatively low access to PPCI due mainly to persistent pattern of late presentation and prior thrombolysis, which reflect apparent lack of direct access to hospitals with PPCI facilities. Conclusion: Comparing the two periods, there was no change in cardiology practice. The low access to PPCI was mainly due to late presentation and prior thrombolysis. Hospital mortality rate for patients treated with PPCI remained low during the two era. This seemingly relates to both lack of public awareness and health provision factors in PPCI organizations.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded41    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal