References

Boersma E Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary pertcutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27:779-88

Bravo Vergel Y, Palmer S, Asseburg C Is primary angioplasty cost effective in the UK? Results of a comprehensive decision analysis. Heart. 2007; 93:(10)1238-43

Carter AJ, Wood S, Goodacre S Evaluation of workforce and organizational issues in establishing primary angioplasty in England. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010; 15:(1)6-13

Department of Health. Treatment of Heart Attack -National Guidance. Final report of the National Infarct Angioplasty Project (NIAP). 2008. http//tinyurl.com/6x4ubw4 (accessed 10 October 2011)

2008. http//tinyurl.com/3qxnxbo (accessed 10 October 2011)

Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003; 361:(9351)13-20

LeMay MR, So DY, Dionne R A citywide protocol for Primary PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. NEJM. 2008; 357:231-40

Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP). 2010. http//tinyurl.com/3atjd76 (accessed 4 October 2011)

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2008. http//tinyurl.com/4xq44uj (accessed 7 October 2011)

Sampson FC, O'Cathain A, Goodacre S Feeling fixed and its contribution to patient satisfaction with primary angioplasty: a qualitative study. Eur J Cardiov Nurs. 2009; 8:(2)85-90

Sampson FC, O'Cathain A, Goodacre S Is primary angioplasty an acceptable alternative to thrombolysis? Quantitative and qualitative study of patient and carer satisfaction. Health Expectations. 2010; 13:(4)350-8

Improving call-to-balloon times for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

04 November 2011
Volume 3 · Issue 11

Abstract

Objectives: The National Infarct Angioplasty Project (NIAP) pilots were set up in 2005 to test the feasibility of implementing a countrywide primary angioplasty (PCI) service for patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction in England. The authors undertook an evaluation of these pilot sites along with a small number of control sites to assess the workforce and staff implications, patient and carer experience and the cost-effectiveness of primary angioplasty-based care in the real world. Methods: this was a mixed methods study, incorporating four main components: description of models of service delivery, evaluation of workforce and organizational issues, patient and carer evaluation and economic evaluation. Results: pilot sites varied considerably in size and configuration. Many offered ambulance bypass for patients within the catchment for nearby feeder (non-PCI) hospitals or received transfers from these non-PCI hospitals. During the pilot year, 70% (1449/2072) of patients were admitted directly to a PCI site, with a further 21% (435/2072) being transferred from a non-PCI site. Median call-to-balloon times (CTB) were 120 minutes for patients taken directly to a PCI site and 161 minutes for patients who went via a non-PCI site. CTB times can be reduced considerably by improving pathways so that ambulances can bypass non-PCI sites and bypass emergency departments by taking patients directly to the catheter laboratory for assessment. The use of telemetry to enable ECGs to be examined by staff within the coronary care unit can also reduce the number of patients being wrongly transferred to primary angioplasty centres. Time delays that incurred from transferring patients from non-PCI sites to PCI sites indicated that promptly administered thrombolysis may be more cost-effective than PCI in certain circumstances. Patients reported very high levels of satisfaction with care and reported higher levels of satisfaction with speed of treatment and the ambulance journey at NIAP site than control sites. Conclusion: primary PCI was found to be a cost-effective and feasible service, providing CTB times can be minimized by streamlining patient pathways.

Primary angioplasty as an alternative to intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been shown to reduce mortality, re-infarction, stroke and the need for coronary artery bypass grafting (Keeley, 2003). Thrombolysis is fairly cheap to administer and can be delivered in a range of settings. Primary angioplasty, on the other hand, requires specialist staff and facilities, is more costly to deliver, but is associated with a shorter hospital stay.

Speed of treatment is strongly linked to outcomes for both methods of reperfusion (Boersma et al, 2006), and there have been huge improvements in call-to-needle times for thrombolysis; in part, due to improvements in prehospital thrombolysis, as well as call-to-balloon times (CTB) for angioplasty over the past decade (Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP), 2010). Economic analyses show that if both treatments are routinely available, primary angioplasty is likely to be cost-effective, compared to thrombolysis if it can be delivered in a timely manner (Bravo et, 2007).

Subscribe to get full access to the Journal of Paramedic Practice

Thank you for visiting the Journal of Paramedic Practice and reading our archive of expert clinical content. If you would like to read more from the only journal dedicated to those working in emergency care, you can start your subscription today for just £48.

What's included

  • CPD Focus

  • Develop your career

  • Stay informed