Aims: To compare the treatment and outcomes of myocardial infarction patients in hospitals with and without catheterization laboratory.
Methods and results: The Hellenic Infarction Observation Study was a countrywide registry of acute myocardial infarction, conducted during 2005-2006. The registry enrolled 1840 patients with myocardial infarction from 31 hospitals with a proportional representation of all types of hospitals and of all geographical areas. Out of these patients, 645 (35%) were admitted in 11 hospitals with and 1195 (65%) in 20 hospitals without catheterization laboratory. Patients admitted in hospitals with catheterization laboratory in comparison with patients admitted in hospitals without were younger (66+/-14 vs. 68+/-13, P<0.004) with less diabetes (27 vs. 33%, P<0.001), but without other baseline differences (female 27 vs. 25%, prior myocardial infarction 20 vs. 17%, Killip class>1 22 vs. 23%). Reperfusion rates for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were 67% (43% lytic, 24% primary percutaneous coronary interventions) versus 56% (55% lytic, 1% percutaneous coronary interventions; P<0.01). In-hospital outcomes in hospitals with versus in hospitals without laboratory were: mortality 6.5 versus 8.3% (NS), stroke 2.2 versus 1.1% (NS), major bleeding 1.1 versus 0.6% (NS), and heart failure 11 versus 16% (P<0.01). In multivariate regression analysis, being admitted in a hospital without catheterization laboratory was not an independent predictor of increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio=1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.93, P=0.505).
Conclusion: Although the majority of acute myocardial infarction patients was admitted in hospitals without catheterization laboratory, these patients do not have a survival disadvantage, provided they are treated with lytic therapy, medical secondary prevention drugs, and eventual revascularization according to current guidelines.