Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, cilt.24, sa.5, ss.412-418, 2013 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
Objectives It is currently unclear whether acute coronary syndrome patients who access hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without an on-site percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have better outcomes in real-life clinical practice.Methods and results This 9-month prospective study was carried out in six Arabian Gulf countries. Patients in hospitals with catheterization facilities [20/65 hospitals; 3615/6847 (52.8%) patients] were more likely to show evidence of cardiovascular risk factors (P<0.001) and more likely to undergo revascularization procedures that were mostly performed (80%) in low-risk and intermediate-risk patients. Patients in these centres experienced significantly higher rates of medical therapies and shorter door-to-needle times [median (IQR): 33 (40) vs. 43.5 (43) min, P<0.001]; 14.1% had primary PCI. They also had less in-hospital recurrent ischaemia, recurrent myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and stroke, but more cardiogenic shock and major bleeding, and they had similar adjusted mortality rates in-hospital [odds ratio (OR): 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.27] and at 30-day (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36) and 1-year (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89-1.27) follow-ups.Conclusion Access to hospitals with catheterization facilities, with or without on-site PCI, was associated with a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction and recurrent ischaemia, but not mortality. Further efforts are required to target revascularization procedures for higher risk patients as well as to widely implement primary PCI programmes.