American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 375–385

Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Community Hospital Without Cardiac Surgical Capability

How Can Access to Interventional Therapy be Improved?
Review Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Early coronary artery intervention is emerging as the treatment of choice for patients with high risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, most patients with ACS are admitted to hospitals which do not have ready access to interventional therapy. Extending the benefits of early intervention to this population is problematic at such community hospitals, since this approach would require either emergency transfer to a tertiary center or the performance of angioplasty on-site at hospitals without cardiac surgical capability. A third solution, pre-hospital ambulance triage to interventional centers, is not currently practised in most countries.

A growing body of evidence indicates that hospitals without cardiac surgical capability can establish safe and effective primary angioplasty programs. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are randomized to transfer for primary angioplasty without fibrinolytic treatment have fewer major adverse cardiac events than those treated with fibrinolytics alone or fibrinolytics and transfer. In patients with unstable angina (UA) or non—ST-elevation AMI, an early aggressive approach led to a significant reduction in the composite end-point of death, AMI, or rehospitalization for recurrent UA at 6 months with no increase in cost, compared with conservative management. Ongoing trials in Europe indicate that pre-hospital ambulance triage of patients with large AMI to interventional centers can be remarkably rapid, safe, and effective.

In order to improve the access of such patients to early intervention, 3 interdependent solutions are proposed:
  1. (i)

    The development of more interventional programs at those hospitals without cardiac surgical facilities that can meet rigorous standards.

     
  2. (ii)

    The development of protocols to insure the early and more frequent transfer of patients with high-risk ACS to interventional centers for coronary angiography and revascularization.

     
  3. (iii)

    The pre-hospital triage of patients with AMI to established heart attack centers with 24-hour, 365-day emergency interventional capability for immediate primary angioplasty (after the model of trauma centers).

     

Universal triage/transfer of all such patients to interventional centers could, however, quickly flood the capability of all tertiary surgical hospitals. With the aging of the ‘baby boomers’ in the near future, the need for interventional facilities will increase even further. Thus the second and third solutions above will ultimately depend on the first solution. Improving the delivery of interventional therapy to patients with ACS can provide a substantial healthcare benefit to society.

References

  1. 1.
    Ryan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, et al. 1999 update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 890–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 970–1062PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986; I: 397–402Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Crawford MH, et al. Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. Veterans Affairs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Strategies in Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1785–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehta RH, Stalhandske EJ, McCargar PA, et al. Elderly patients at highest risk with acute myocardial infarction are more frequently transferred from community hospitals to tertiary centers: reality or myth? Am Heart J 2001; 138: 688–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weaver WD, Simes J, Betriu A, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 1997; 278: 2093–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Neill WW, de Boer MJ, Gibbons RJ, et al. Lessons from the pooled outcome of PAMI, Zwolle, and Mayo Clinic Randomized Trials of primary angioplasty versus thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction. J Invasive Cardiol 1998; 10 Suppl. A: 4A–10AGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zahn R, Schiele R, Gitt AK, et al. Primary angioplasty is superior to intravenous thrombolysis in all subgroups of patients: results of 9906 patients with acute myocardial infarction [abstract]. Circulation 1999; 100: 1–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zijlstra F, Beukema WP, van’t Hof AW, et al. Randomized comparison of primary coronary angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy in low risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 908–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schömig A, Kastrati A, Dirschinger J, et al. Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 385–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Arani DT, et al. Short- and long-term mortality for patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1194–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magid DJ, Calonge BN, Rumsfeld JS, et al. Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty vs thrombolytic therapy. JAMA 2000; 3131-8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zahn R, Schiele R, Schnieder S, et al. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: can we define subgroups of patients benefiting most from primary angioplasty? Results from the pooled data of the maximal individual therapy in acute myocardial infarction registry and the myocardial infarction registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 1827–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zahn R, Schiele R, Schnieder S, et al. Decreasing hospital mortality between 1994 and 1998 in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty but not in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 2064–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers WJ. Contemporary management of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 1995; 99: 195–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers WJ, Bowlby LJ, Chandra NC, et al. Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 1994; 90: 2103–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grines CL, Booth DC, Nissen SE, et al. Mechanism of acute myocardial infarction in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting and therapeutic implications. Am J Cardiol 1990; 65: 1292–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    The TIMI Study Group. Effects of tissue plasminogen activator and a comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the TIMI IIIB Trial. Thrombolysis in myocardial ischemia. Circulation 1994; 89: 1545–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FIT) Collaborative Group. Indications forfibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 1994; 343: 311–22Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barron HV, Rundle A, Gurwitz J, Tiefenbrunn A. Reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Cardiol Rev 1999; 7: 156–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zahn R, Schuster S, Schielel R, et al. Comparison of primary angioplasty with conservative therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and contraindications for thrombolytic therapy. Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) Study Group. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999; 46: 127–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zahn R, Schiele R, Schneider S, et al. Primary dilatation versus thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarct, not included in randomized studies. Results of the MITRA Study: Maximal Individual Optimized Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarct. Z Kardiol 1999; 88: 418–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scull GS, Martin JS, Weaver WD, Every, NR, for the MITI Investigators. Early angiography versus conservative treatment in patients with non-ST elevation acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiology 2000; 35: 895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 625–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brodie BR, Stuckey TD, Muncy DB, et al. Importance of time to reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction with and without cardiogenic shock treated with primary angioplasty [abstract]. Circulation 2000; 102:II–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holmes Jr DR, Topol EJ, Berger PB, et al. Contemporary reperfusion therapy for cardiogenic shock: the GUSTO-I trial experience. The GUSTO-I Investigators. Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26: 668–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Santoro GM, et al. Systematic direct angioplasty and stent-supported direct angioplasty therapy for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: in-hospital and long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 294–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bengtson J, Kaplan J, Pieper K, et. al. Prognosis in cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction in the interventional era. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20: 1482–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stomel RJ, Basak M, Bates ER. Treatment strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in a community hospital. Chest 1994; 105: 997–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kovack PJ, Stomel RJ, Ohman EM, et al. Thrombolysis plus aortic counterpulsation: improved survival in patients who present to community hospitals with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 1454–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berger PB, Topol EJ, Califf RM, et al. Impact of an aggressive invasive catheterization and revascularization strategy on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-I) trial. An observational study. Circulation 1997; 96: 122–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hernandez F, Hernandez P, Tascon JC, et al. Emergency revascularization and hybrid approaches in cardiogenic shock [abstract]. Eur Heart J 1999; 20 suppl.: 169Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wharton Jr TP, McNamara NS, Lew D, et al. Cardiogenic shock at community hospitals with no surgery on site: Outcomes after primary angioplasty in 101 patients in a multicenter registry [abstract]. Circulation 1998; 98:I–307–308Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wharton Jr TP, McNamara NS, Fedele FA, et al. Primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: experience at two community hospitals without cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33: 1257–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hasdai D, Califf R, Thompson T, et al. Predictors of cardiogenic shock after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 136–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Schulman SP, et al. Lack of benefit for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with myocardial infarction who are older than 75 years. Circulation 2000; 101: 2239–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ayanian JZ, Braunwald E. Thrombolytic therapy for patients with myocardial infarction who are older than 75 years [editorial]. Circulation 2000; 101: 2224–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berger AK, Schulman KA, Gersh BJ, et al. Primary coronary angioplasty vs thrombolysis for the management of acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. JAMA 1999; 282: 341–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fragmin and Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease Investigators. Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. Lancet 1999; 354: 708–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anderson HV, Cannon CP, Stone PH, et al. One-year results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) IIIB clinical trial. A randomized comparison of tissue-type plasminogen activator versus placebo and early invasive versus early conservative strategies in unstable angina and non-Q wave myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26: 1643–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rouleau JL, Moye LA, Pfeffer MA, et al. A comparison of management patterns after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. The SAVE investigators. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 779–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mark DB, Naylor CD, Hlatky MA, et al. Use of medical resources and quality of life after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1130–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fu Y, Chang WC, Mark D, et al. Canadian-American differences in the management of acute coronary syndromes in the GUSTO IIb trial: one-year follow-up of patients without ST-segment elevation. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) II Investigators. Circulation 2000; 102: 1375–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulous LA et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. New Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1879–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weintraub WS. Treat angina with aggrastat and determine cost of therapy with an invasive or conservative strategy (TACTICS)-TIMI 18. Oral presentation during the 50th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association, 2001 March 18–21; Orlando, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Foot DK, Lewis RP, Pearson TA, Beller GA. Demographics and cardiology, 1950–2050. J Am Col Cardiol 2000; 35: 66B–80BGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith Jr SC, Dove JT, Jacobs AK, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary and recommendations: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1993 Guidelines for Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 2215–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Directory of cardiac catheterization laboratories in the United States. 4th ed. Raleigh (NC): The Laboratory Performance Standards Committee of The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions, 1996Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Aversano T, et al. Atlantic cardiovascular patient outcomes research team trial of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs thrombolysis in acute MI (C-PORT PCI). Oral presentation during the 73rd Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association, 2000 Nov 12–15; New Orleans, LA. Available from URL.http://www.scientificsessions.org/archive/abstract/clinicaltrialsresults@CPORT-PCI.pdf Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Every NR, Maynard C, Schulman K, et al. The association between institutional primary angioplasty procedure volume and outcome in elderly Americans. J Invasive Cardiol 2000; 12: 303–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al. Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patient undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2000; 283: 2941–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Canto JG, Every NR, Magid DJ, et al. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1573–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vogel J. Angioplasty in the patient with an evolving myocardial infarction: with and without surgical backup. Clin Cardiol 1992; 15: 880–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weaver WD, Litwin PE, Martin JS. Use of direct angioplasty for treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery. Circulation 1993; 88: 2067–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Iannone LA, Anderson SM, Phillips SJ. Coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in a hospital without cardiac surgery. Texas Heart Inst J 1993; 20: 99–104Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ayres M. Coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in hospitals without cardiac surgery. J Invas Cardiology 1995; 7 (Suppl. F): 40F–8FGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Weaver WD, Parsons L, Every N. Primary coronary angioplasty in hospitals with and without surgery backup. J Invas Cardiol 1995; 7 suppl. F: 34F–9FGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Brush JE, Thompson S, Ciuffo AA, et al. Retrospective comparison of a strategy of primary coronary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction in a community hospital without cardiac surgery. J Invas Cardiol 1996; 8: 91–8Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weaver WD for the MITI Project Investigators. PTCA in centers without surgical backup outcome, logistics, and technical aspects. J Invas Cardiol 1997; 9 (Suppl. B): 20B–3BGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Smyth DW, Richards AM, Elliot JM. Direct angioplasty for myocardial infarction: one-year experience in a center with surgical backup 220 miles away. J Invas Cardiol 1997; 9: 324–32Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wharton Jr TP, Johnston JD, Turco MA, et al. Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction with no surgery on site: outcomes, core angiographic analysis, and six-month follow-up in the 500-patient prospective PAMI—No S.O.S. Registry [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33: 352A–3ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ribichini F, Steffenino G, Dellavalle A, et al. Primary angioplasty without surgical back-up at all. Results of a five years experience in a community hospital in Europe [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiology 2000; 35: 364AGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    O’Neill WW, Brodie BR, Ivanhoe R, et al. Primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (the Primary Angioplasty Registry). Am J Cardiol 1994; 73: 627–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, et al. Prospective, multicenter study of the safety and feasibility of primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: in-hospital and 30-day results of the PAMI stent pilot trial. Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Stent Pilot Trial Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 23–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Antoniucci D, Santoro GM, Bolognese L, et al. A clinical trial comparing primary stenting of the infarct-related artery with optimal primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Results of the Florence Randomized Elective Stenting in Acute Coronary Occlusions (FRESCO) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 1234–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Suryapranata H, van’t Hof AW, Hoorntje JCA, et al. Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998; 97: 2502–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    The EPISTENT Investigators. Randomised placebo-controlled and balloon-angioplasty-controlled trial to assess safety of coronary stenting with use of platelet glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa blockade. Lancet 1998; 352: 87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brener SJ, Barr LA, Burchenal J, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of platelet glycoprotein Ilb/IIIa blockade with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. The RAPPORT trial. Circulation 1998; 98: 734–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Loubeyre C, Morice MC, Berzin B, et al. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery following coronary angioplasty and stenting: results of a French multicenter registry. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 1999; 48: 441–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stone GW, Brodie B, Griffin J, et al. Role of cardiac surgery in the hospital phase management of patients treated with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 1292–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shubrooks Jr SJ, Nesto RW, Leeman D, et al. Urgent coronary bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent era: is backup still necessary? Am Heart J 2001; 142: 190–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Simpson DE, Boura JA, Grines LL, Grines CL. Predictors of delay from ER to cath with primary PTCA for acute MI [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 3520AGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Brodie BR, Stuckey TD, Wall TC, et al. Importance of time to reperfusion for 30-day and late survival and recovery of left ventricular function after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 1312–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Grines CL, Balestrini C, Westerhausen DR, et al. A randomized trial of thrombolysis vs transfer for primary ptca in high risk ami patients: results of the AIR PAMI trial [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiology 2000; 35: 376AGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Widimsky P, Groch L, Zelizko M, et al. Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. Eur Heart J 2000; 2: 823–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ross AM, Coyne KS, Reiner JS, et al. A randomized trial comparing primary angioplasty with a strategy of short-acting thrombolysis and immediate planned rescue angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the PACT trial. PACT investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1954–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Stone GW. Providing facilitated primary PTCA — the CADILLAC II trial. Oral presentation during the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics XII 2000 Oct 18–20; Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tiefenbrunn AJ, Chandra NC, Every NR, et al. High mortality in patients with myocardial infarction transferred for primary angioplasty: a report from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction-2 [abstract]. Circulation 1997; 96: 1–531Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Grines LL, Wharton Jr TP, Balestrini C, et al. Should high-risk acute myocardial infarction patients admitted to non-surgical hospitals be transferred for primary PTCA or receive it on-site [abstract]. Circulation 2000; 102: II–386Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ernst N, de Boer MJ, van’t Hof AW, et al. Prehospital infarction angioplasty triage (PHIAT): results from the Zwolle myocardial infarction study group [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 339ACrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas P. WhartonJr
    • 1
  • Nancy Sinclair McNamara
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiology Section and Cardiac Catheterization LaboratoryExeter HospitalExeterUSA

Personalised recommendations