|
|
||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999; 34:1947-1953 © 1999 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |



a Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
* Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institut Municipal dInvestigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain
Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitari Dr. Josep Trueta, Girona, Spain
¶ Department of Cardiology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
Manuscript received December 3, 1998; revised manuscript received June 24, 1999, accepted August 27, 1999.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Jaume Marrugat, Departament dEpidemiologia i Salut Pública, Institut Municipal dInvestigació Mèdica (IMIM), Carrer Doctor Aiguader 80, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain
JAUME{at}IMIM.ES
OBJECTIVES
The study assessed whether varying accessibility of patients with unstable angina (UA) to coronary angiography and revascularization determined differing usages and outcomes.
BACKGROUND
The appropriate use rate of coronary angiography and revascularization procedures in UA remains to be established.
METHODS
A total of 791 consecutive patients with UA without previous acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted to four reference teaching hospitals (one with tertiary facilities) were followed for six months. End points were six-month mortality and readmission for AMI, UA, heart failure, or severe ventricular arrhythmias.
RESULTS
Patients admitted to the tertiary hospital were 3.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 4.62) times more likely to undergo coronary angiography after adjustment for comorbidity and severity than were those admitted to nontertiary facilities (overall six-month use rates 70.1% and 48.3%, respectively). Revascularization procedures were performed in 36.2% of patients in the tertiary hospital and 24.6% in the others (p = 0.0007); adjusted relative risk (RR) 2.37 (95% CI 1.55 to 3.63). Median delay for urgent coronary angiography was shorter in the tertiary hospital (24 h vs. 4 days, p < 0.0002). Six-month mortality and readmission rates were similar in tertiary and nontertiary hospitals: 3.9% versus 5.3% and 16.9% versus 21.2%, respectively. Adjusted RR of death or readmission for the nontertiary hospitals was 1.23 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.67).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of coronary angiography and revascularization procedures in UA patients with no previous AMI is higher in tertiary than in nontertiary hospitals, but the more selective use of these procedures in nontertiary centers does not imply worse outcome.
| ||||||||||||||||
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
F. Van de Werf, J. M Gore, A. Avezum, D. C Gulba, S. G Goodman, A. Budaj, D. Brieger, K. White, K. A A Fox, K. A Eagle, et al. Access to catheterisation facilities in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome: multinational registry study BMJ, February 26, 2005; 330(7489): 441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E.R. Ferreiros, R. Kevorkian, J.J. Fuselli, J. Guetta, C.P. Boissonnet, D. di Toro, R. Cragnolino, O. Masoli, A. Cagide, and J. Krauss First national survey on management strategies in non ST-elevation acute ischaemic syndromes in Argentina. Results of the STRATEG-SIA study Eur. Heart J., July 1, 2002; 23(13): 1021 - 1029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |