New NEMJ Study on Door-to-Balloon and Mortality in STEMI

A day after I posted about the benefits of reducing door-to-balloon times to improve mortality, Door-to-Balloon Time and Mortality the New England Medical Journal released a major new observational study that showed that despite a significant reduction in door to balloon time in recent years, there has not been a corresponding decline in 30 Ėday in-hospital mortality.

Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI.

It is a provacative article and I look forward to the medical community discussion about the findings.

Here is my initial reaction:

In-hospital mortality is not the best measure of effectiveness of door-to-balloon time. Very few STEMI patients actually die in the hospital. 4.7% in this study. Most of the ones who die are very sick (patients in cardiogenic shock etc, some post ROSC) when they come in. Most STEMI patients, particularly those who come in shortly after presentation, do quite well and are out of the hospital within 2 or 3 days. Many leave with no loss of heart function at all! Perhaps a better measure of the effectiveness of door-to-balloon time would be heart function and post MI quality of life.

The authors suggest, and I agree, that we need to look less at door-to-balloon time and more at symptom onset-to-balloon time.

Here again is an article I mentioned in my previous post, Association of onset to balloon and door to balloon time with long term clinical outcome in patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction having primary percutaneous coronary intervention: observational study, which concluded:

“Short onset to balloon time was associated with better 3 year clinical outcome in patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas the benefit of short door to balloon time was limited to patients who presented early.”

The NEMJ article suggests that hospitals have gotten their in-house systems down so well that perhaps, they are saving everyone that can be saved and there is no more room for improvement.

An accompanying editorial to yesterday’s New England Medical Journal article, Time to treatment in patients with STEMI suggests that:

“Itís unlikely that reducing in-hospital delays by another few minutes will affect clinical outcomes, given the small portion of total ischemic time those minutes would represent and the success thatís been achieved in the system of in-hospital STEMI care. The primary opportunity for reducing total ischemic time and time to treatment, and for improving outcomes, now lies in the prehospital STEMI system of care.”

The time period for this study was 2005 to 2009, before most EMS systems started transmitting ECGs, using STEMI alerts, and field activations.

5 Comments

  • William Dillon says:

    Great Comments. The D to B metric is great to make sure the PCI centers process is good. It is not the entire story. Most of the gains in the future will be with Pre-hospital care. We have to figure out a way to improve patients activating the system earlier.

  • Jarrod Moody says:

    This was a good article. I have to agree that we often place a lot of focus on D2B times. We also factor in Door to EKG, EKG to Activation, etc. but these are all in-house. I do agree with the statement that “The primary opportunity for reducing total ischemic time and time to treatment, and for improving outcomes, now lies in the prehospital STEMI system of care.” With cardiac hospitals such as ours that are conducting an average of 90 PCIs a quarter with an average of 47 minute door to balloon times (consider that half of those are nights/weekends when cath lab staff is not in house) for patients presenting directly to the ER via POV or EMS, we can only make small adjustments to improve the process. I believe that the key lies in early recognition via EMS, transmission, and activation from the field. Yes, the AHA has put out a voluntary “EMS Recognition Program” that is supposed to hold pre-hospital providers more accountable and provide core measures to track but there has been no system integration for the purposes of data sharing and feedback between the hospitals and the pre-hospital setting. I agree that D2B is important but other factors should be taken into place. The national average for DIDO times at non-PCI centers is 56 minutes. Most transferring hospitals aren’t coming close to this number, and it takes a tremendous amount of effort and continual feedback to make headway in improving their times. Unless that organization decides to become a chest pain accredited facility (which is an entire entity of its own), there is no accountability. We have put all of the focus on the PCI centers when we are really just a small part of a very large process. The EMS agencies and the non-PCI centers in our area are doing a great job and want to improve the quality of care for our patients but the measures need to be looked at and adjustments need to be made for everyone.

    Jarrod
    STEMI/EMS Outreach Coordinator

  • Brooks Walsh says:

    Yeah, in the majority of STEMI patients the mortality isn’t going to be too different Ī a few minutes. For that matter, the mortality would likely be about the same with fibrinolysis vs primary PCI. (Reference somewhere on my computer…)

    That being said, the authors of the NEJM also looked at the subset of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock, where the mortality was about 27%. They found the same flat mortality curve, despite the similar decrease to DTB. I have the graph up at my Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrooksWalsh/status/375448577738174464/photo/1).

    This is a little harder to explain, given the central role that PCI has played in STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.

  • Jon Kavanagh says:

    Resurrecting the thread…

    I also add http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20494656 to the mix.

    Stroke has a “go/no go” window of opportunity. Should STEMI? We develop systems of care that include prehospital cath lab activation, but does it matter? Do those few extra minutes matter for the patient when the interventionalist teams are as fast as they are? Should we look at a 5 hr window, that if the patient is inside it, minutes matter, but if he’s outside of it, slow things down a smidge?

  • Jarrod Moody says:

    Jon,

    That is a very good question, and yes, we should be doing that. I don’t have the guidelines in front of me, but I believe that the American College of Cardiology recommends PCI for STEMI patients within 4 to 6 hours of onset of chest pain. I believe that the method of treatment decision depends on several different variables. For example, we have a transferring, non-PCI, rural hospital 65 miles away from our PCI Center that transports patients to us regularly. They have issues in obtaining ALS service (most services in that area are providing BLS only), issues staffing their hospital due to the location, and when patients are brought to us via ground, there really is no easy way to get to our campus due to the geographic layout. After taking that into account along with current transport times, I use the American College of Cardiology’s Best Practices to develop thrombolytic protocols for that specific facility and seek approval from our cardiologists. If we see progression upon re-evaluation, then we can make adjustments as needed. Realistically, how many patients are calling EMS within minutes of onset of chest pain? Some wait for hours. Others wait for days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

background image Blogger Img

Peter Canning

JEMS Talk: Google Hangout

Recent Posts
ECG Quiz May 7, 2015
copy-medicscribeheader.png Intranasal Medication April 26, 2015
SW_Rectangle The Jug March 26, 2015
SW_Rectangle The Ideal Medic March 24, 2015
Categories
  • ems-health-safety (7)
  • ems-topics (705)
  • hazmat (1)
  • Uncategorized (421)
  • Archives
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • Comments
    Casey
    Intranasal Medication
    Agreed Steve. Love IN Versed for combative/ictal patients. Also IN versed is used in ED for kids. Helps with pain relief and as an amnesic and wears off fairly quick- not sure that directly applies to prehospital but food for thought nonetheless
    2015-05-07 00:36:28
    Chris
    AHA 2015 Guidelines: A Preview
    I am a 25 year veteran firefighter/medic, and 9 year veteran critial care fixed wing medic. I work in Northeast Ohio. In this region, we have all but abandoned endotrachal intubation for the intent of ease of a superglottic airway. AHA de-emphasizing ETI and we have seen this coming for a while. We either bag…
    2015-05-05 20:54:08
    Steve
    Intranasal Medication
    "either because they are seizing or are violent, then the better and quicker route would be IM. " I'm quite hesitant about bring a needle against someone fighting me or shaking... those are the perfect times to be needleless.
    2015-04-27 18:34:14
    bill
    The Ideal Medic
    very well put! aggression can be a good in moderation but over aggression can do harm. 1 year to 30 years no medic will know it all epically with our ever changing job description. thank you for your input!
    2015-04-26 11:46:50
    Ben Leighton
    Adenosine
    Hi. Im a UK Student Paramedic and I have a few questions regarding adenosine (we currently dont carry it) and I was wondering if any of you guys could e-mail me at ben-leighton@hotmail.co.uk and start some correspondance. Im aiming to set a proposal to my service in order to carry this drug and wanted some…
    2015-04-20 13:36:03

    Now Available: Mortal Men

    Mortal Men is available as an electronic book for Kindle, Nook or any other e-reader. Here is a link to some of the places to buy it. The book sells for $3.99. Barnes and Noble Amazon Smashwords Scribd Also Available from iBooks

    Order My Books

    Support EMS Bloggers, Buy Their Books

    Google

    Order Books and Movies

    FireEMS Blogs eNewsletter

    Sign-up to receive our free monthly eNewsletter

    LATEST EMS NEWS

    HOT FORUM DISCUSSIONS