Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:19:59.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduction in STEMI Transfer Times Utilizing a Municipal “911” Ambulance Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2014

Joseph C. Tennyson Open the ORCID record for Joseph C. Tennyson [Opens in a new window]  and
Mark R. Quale
Joseph C. Tennyson*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts USA
Mark R. Quale
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina USA
*
Correspondence: Joseph C. Tennyson, MD University of Massachusetts Medical School 55 Lake Ave North Worcester, MA 01655 USA. E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

The time interval from diagnosis to reperfusion therapy for patients experiencing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has a significant impact on morbidity and mortality.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that the time required for interfacility patient transfers from a community hospital to a regional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center using an Advanced Life Support (ALS) transfer ambulance service is no different than utilizing the “911” ALS ambulance.

Methods

Quality assurance data collected by a tertiary care center cardiac catheterization program were reviewed retrospectively. Data were collected on all patients with STEMI requiring interfacility transfer from a local community hospital to the tertiary care center's PCI suite, approximately 16 miles away by ground, 12 miles by air. In 2009, transfers of patients with STEMI were redirected to the municipal ALS ambulance service, instead of the hospital's contracted ALS transfer service. Data were collected from January 2007 through May 2013. Temporal data were compared between transports initiated through the contracted ALS ambulance service and the municipal ALS service. Data points included time of initial transport request and time of ambulance arrival to the sending facility and the receiving PCI suite.

Results

During the 4-year study period, 63 patients diagnosed with STEMI and transferred to the receiving hospital's PCI suite were included in this study. Mean times from the transport request to arrival of the ambulance at the sending hospital's emergency department were six minutes (95% CI, 4-7 minutes) via municipal ALS and 13 minutes (95% CI, 9-16 minutes) for the ALS transfer service. The mean times from the ground transport request to arrival at the receiving hospital's PCI suite when utilizing the municipal ALS ambulance and hospital contracted ALS ambulance services were 48 minutes (95% CI, 33-64 minutes) and 56 minutes (95% CI 52-59 minutes), respectively. This eight-minute period represented a 14% (P = .001) reduction in the mean transfer time to the PCI suite for patients transported via the municipal ALS ambulance.

Conclusion

In the appropriate setting, the use of the municipal “911” ALS ambulance service for the interfacility transport of patients with STEMI appears advantageous in reducing door-to-catheterization times.

TennysonJC , QualeMR . Reduction in STEMI Transfer Times Utilizing a Municipal “911” Ambulance Service. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(1):1-4.

Keywords

cardiac catheterizationEmergency Medical Servicesmyocardial infarctionprehospital care
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 50 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. O'Gara, PT, Kushner, FG, Ascheim, DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American college of cardiology foundation/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2012;127(4):e362-e425.Google Scholar
2. Andersen, HR, Nielsen, TT, Rasmussen, K, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(8):733-742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Keeley, EC, Boura, JA, Grines, CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomized trials. Lancet. 2003;361(9351):13-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Müller, UM, Eitel, I, Eckrich, K, et al. Impact of minimizing door-to-balloon times in ST-elevation myocardial infarction to less than 30 min on outcome: an analysis over an 8-year period in a tertiary care centre. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011;100(4):297-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Terkelsen, CJ, Sorensen, JT, Maeng, M, et al. System delay and mortality among patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2010;304(7):763-771.Google Scholar
6. McNamara, RL, Wang, Y, Herrin, J, et al. Effect of door-to-balloon time on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(11):2180-2186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. De Luca, G, Suryapranata, H, Ottervanger, JP, Antman, EM. Time delay to treatment and mortality in primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: every minute of delay counts. Circulation. 2004;109(10):1223-1225.Google Scholar
8. Cone, DC, Lee, CH, Van Gelder, C. EMS Activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory is associated with process improvements in the care of myocardial infarction patients. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013;17(3):293-298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Thomas, SH, Kociszewski, C, Hyde, RJ, Brennan, PJ, Wedel, SK. Prehospital electrocardiogram and early helicopter dispatch to expedite interfacility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2006;5(3):155-159.Google Scholar
10. Daudelin, DH, Sayah, AJ, Kwong, M, et al. Improving use of prehospital 12-lead ECG for early identification and treatment of acute coronary syndrome and ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(3):316-323.Google Scholar
11. Kurz, MC, Babcock, C, Sinha, S, Tupesis, JP, Allegretti, J. The impact of emergency physician-initiated primary percutaneous coronary intervention on mean door-to-balloon time in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(5):527-534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Le May, MR, Dionne, R, Maloney, J, Poirier, P. The role of paramedics in a primary PCI program for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;53(3):183-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Rokos, IC, Larson, DM, Henry, TD, et al. Rationale for establishing regional ST-elevation myocardial infarction receiving center (SRC) networks. Am Heart J. 2006;152(4):661-667.Google Scholar
14. Baruch, T, Rock, A, Koenig, WJ, Rokos, I, French, WJ. “Call 911” STEMI protocol to reduce delays in transfer of patients from non primary percutaneous coronary intervention referral centers. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2010;9(3):113-115.Google Scholar
15. Ryan, D, Craig, AM, Turner, L, Verbeek, PR. Clinical events and treatment in prehospital patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013;17(2):181-186.Google Scholar
16. Aguirre, FV, Varghese, JJ, Kelley, MP, et al. Rural interhospital transfer of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients for percutaneous coronary revascularization: the Stat Heart Program. Circulation. 2008;117(9):1145-1152.Google Scholar
17. Nallamothu, BK, Bates, ER, Herrin, J, et al. Times to treatment in transfer patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-3/4 analysis. Circulation. 2005;111(6):761-767.Google Scholar
18. Wang, TY, Peterson, ED, Ou, FS, Nallamothu, BK, Rumsfeld, JS, Roe, MT. Door-to-balloon times for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction requiring interhospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the national cardiovascular data registry. Am Heart J. 2011;161(1):76-83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Herrin, J, Miller, LE, Turkmani, DF, et al. National performance on door-in to door-out time among patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(21):1879-1886.Google Scholar
20. Wang, TY, Nallamothu, BK, Krumholz, HM, et al. Association of door-in to door-out time with reperfusion delays and outcomes among patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;305(24):2540-2547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Henry, TD, Unger, BT, Sharkey, SW, et al. Design of a standardized system for transfer of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction for percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2005;150(3):373-384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Miedema, MD, Newell, MC, Duval, S, et al. Causes of delay and associated mortality in patients transferred with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2011;124(15):1636-1644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Weisberg, S, Fitch, J, Towner, D, Darling, CE. Transporting without infusions: effect on door-to-needle time for acute coronary syndrome patients. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):159-163.Google Scholar