z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Detección de barreras e implementación de procedimientos para reducir la demora en el tratamiento del síndrome coronario agudo con elevación del segmento ST mediante angioplastia primaria. Experiencia de 20 años de un centro de referencia en una ciudad de alta densidad demográfica
Author(s) -
Federico Carlos Blanco,
Federico Carlos Blanco,
Alejandro García Escudero,
Federico Albornoz,
Analía Alonso,
Vielka Yurko,
Susana Affatato,
Matías Feldman,
Gerardo Gigena
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
revista argentina de cardiologia
Language(s) - English
DOI - 10.7775/rac.es.v89.i2.19989
Subject(s) - medicine , acute coronary syndrome , percutaneous coronary intervention , hemodynamics , conventional pci , confidence interval , cardiology , myocardial infarction
Background: The delay to reperfusion of ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS) is a key factor in its prognosis, and its reduction could reduce morbidity and mortality. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify and modify the barriers detected in 20 years of STEACS treatment in a tertiary care center of a densely populated city to evaluate their effect on the outcome of the procedure. Methods: A total of 3007 patients with STEACS within 12 hours of symptoms onset were prospectively and consecutively included to undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2019. Time from symptoms onset to balloon inflation was divided into intervals. After barriers were identified (2000-2009), the procedure was changed. The population was divided into two groups (G) G1: pre-implementation (2000-2009) and G2: post-implementation (2010-2019) of changes. Results: G1 included 1409 and G2 1598 patients with no demographic differences except for the type of PCI. Delays were identified in diagnosis, communication between physicians, transfer and admission of the patient to the hemodynamics lab. Procedural changes decreased first medical contact-hemodynamic team contact interval [G1: 90 min (36-168) vs. G2: 77 min (36-144) p –0.01] and hemodynamic team contact-hemodynamics lab admission interval [G1: 75 min (55-100) vs. G2: 51 min (34-70) p –0.01] and reduced in-hospital (G1: 9,2% vs. G2: 6,7% p –0,01) and 6-month (G1: 13.1% vs. G2: 7.5% p –0. 01) mortality. Conclusions: Delay in diagnosis, difficulty in communication and type of transfer were the most important causes of delay. Implementing a procedural protocol reduced delays. Continuous evaluation of results and permanent education constitute the fundamental cornerstones for optimizing network care programs

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here