+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Out-of-hours primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction is not associated with excess mortality: a study of 3347 patients treated in an integrated cardiac network

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Timely delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Optimum delivery of PPCI requires an integrated network of hospitals, following a multidisciplinary, consultant-led, protocol-driven approach. We investigated whether such a strategy was effective in providing equally effective in-hospital and long-term outcomes for STEMI patients treated by PPCI within normal working hours compared with those treated out-of-hours (OOHs).


          Observational study.


          Large PPCI centre in London.


          3347 STEMI patients were treated with PPCI between 2004 and 2012. The follow-up median was 3.3 years (IQR: 1.2–4.6 years).

          Primary and secondary outcome measures

          The primary endpoint was long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with all-cause mortality a secondary endpoint.


          Of the 3347 STEMI patients, 1299 patients (38.8%) underwent PPCI during a weekday between 08:00 and 18:00 (routine-hours group) and 2048 (61.2%) underwent PPCI on a weekday between 18:00 and 08:00 or a weekend (OOHs group). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups with comparable door-to-balloon times (in-hours (IHs) 67.8 min vs OOHs 69.6 min, p=0.709), call-to-balloon times (IHs 116.63 vs OOHs 127.15 min, p=0.60) and procedural success. In hospital mortality rates were comparable between the two groups (IHs 3.6% vs OOHs 3.2%) with timing of presentation not predictive of outcome (HR 1.25 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.11). Over the follow-up period there were no significant differences in rates of mortality (IHs 7.4% vs OFHs 7.2%, p=0.442) or MACE (IHs 15.4% vs OFHs 14.1%, p=0.192) between the two groups. After adjustment for confounding variables using multivariate analysis, timing of presentation was not an independent predictor of mortality (HR 1.04 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39).


          This large registry study demonstrates that the delivery of PPCI with a multidisciplinary, consultant-led, protocol-driven approach provides safe and effective treatment for patients regardless of the time of presentation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials.

          Many trials have been done to compare primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with thrombolytic therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (AMI). Our aim was to look at the combined results of these trials and to ascertain which reperfusion therapy is most effective. We did a search of published work and identified 23 trials, which together randomly assigned 7739 thrombolytic-eligible patients with ST-segment elevation AMI to primary PTCA (n=3872) or thrombolytic therapy (n=3867). Streptokinase was used in eight trials (n=1837), and fibrin-specific agents in 15 (n=5902). Most patients who received thrombolytic therapy (76%, n=2939) received a fibrin-specific agent. Stents were used in 12 trials, and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in eight. We identified short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and stroke, and did subgroup analyses to assess the effect of type of thrombolytic agent used and the strategy of emergent hospital transfer for primary PTCA. All analyses were done with and without inclusion of the SHOCK trial data. Primary PTCA was better than thrombolytic therapy at reducing overall short-term death (7% [n=270] vs 9% [360]; p=0.0002), death excluding the SHOCK trial data (5% [199] vs 7% [276]; p=0.0003), non-fatal reinfarction (3% [80] vs 7% [222]; p<0.0001), stroke (1% [30] vs 2% [64]; p=0.0004), and the combined endpoint of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and stroke (8% [253] vs 14% [442]; p<0.0001). The results seen with primary PTCA remained better than those seen with thrombolytic therapy during long-term follow-up, and were independent of both the type of thrombolytic agent used, and whether or not the patient was transferred for primary PTCA. Primary PTCA is more effective than thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

            Understanding how door-to-drug and door-to-balloon times vary by time of day and day of week can inform the design of interventions to improve the timeliness of reperfusion therapy. To determine the pattern of door-to-drug and door-to-balloon times by time of day and day of week and whether this pattern may affect mortality. Cohort study of 68,439 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytic therapy and 33,647 treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 1999 through 2002. We classified patient hospital arrival period into regular hours (weekdays, 7 am-5 pm) and off-hours (weekdays 5 pm-7 am and weekends). Geometric mean door-to-drug time for fibrinolytic therapy and door-to-balloon time for PCI and all-cause in-hospital mortality. All outcomes were adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. Most fibrinolytic therapy (67.9%) and PCI patients (54.2%) were treated during off-hours. Door-to-drug times were slightly longer during off-hours (34.3 minutes) than regular hours (33.2 minutes; difference, 1.0 minute; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-1.4; P<.001). In contrast, door-to-balloon times were substantially longer during off-hours (116.1 minutes) than regular hours (94.8 minutes; difference, 21.3 minutes; 95% CI, 20.5-22.2; P<.001). A lower percentage of patients met guideline recommended times for door-to-balloon during off-hours (25.7%) than regular hours (47%; P<.001). Door-to-balloon times exceeding 120 minutes occurred much more commonly during off-hours (41.5%) than regular hours (27.7%; P<.001). Longer off-hours door-to-balloon times were primarily due to a longer interval between obtaining the electrocardiogram and patient arrival at the catheterization laboratory (off-hours, 69.8 minutes vs regular hours, 49.1 minutes; P<.001). This pattern was consistent across all hospital subgroups examined. Furthermore, patients presenting during off-hours had significantly higher adjusted in-hospital mortality than patients presenting during regular hours (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.14; P = .02). Presentation during off-hours was common and was associated with substantially longer times to treatment for PCI but not for fibrinolytic therapy. To achieve the best outcomes, hospitals providing PCI during off-hours should commit to doing so in a timely manner.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of time of presentation on the care and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction.

              Prior studies have demonstrated an inconsistent association between patients' arrival time for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and their subsequent medical care and outcomes. Using a contemporary national clinical registry, we examined differences in medical care and in-hospital mortality among AMI patients admitted during regular hours (weekdays 7 am to 7 pm) versus off-hours (weekends, holidays, and 7 pm to 7 am weeknights). The study cohort included 62,814 AMI patients from the Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease database admitted to 379 hospitals throughout the United States from July 2000 through September 2005. Overall, 33 982 (54.1%) patients arrived during off-hours. Compared with those arriving during regular hours, eligible off-hour patients were slightly less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 0.98), had longer door-to-balloon times (median, 110 versus 85 minutes; P<0.0001), and were less likely to achieve door-to-balloon < or = 90 minutes (adjusted OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.39). Arrival during off-hours was associated with slightly lower overall revascularization rates (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.97). No measurable differences, however, were found in in-hospital mortality between regular hours and off-hours in the overall AMI, ST-elevated MI, and non-ST-elevated MI cohorts (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.06; adjusted OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.18; and adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04, respectively). Similar observations were made across most age and sex subgroups and with an alternative definition for arrival time (weekends/holidays versus weekdays). Despite slightly fewer primary percutaneous coronary interventions and overall revascularizations and significantly longer door-to-balloon times, patients presenting with AMI during off-hours had in-hospital mortality similar to those presenting during regular hours.

                Author and article information

                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                27 June 2013
                : 3
                : 6
                [1 ]Department of Cardiology, Barts and the London NHS Trust , London, UK
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University , London, UK
                [3 ]NIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit , London Chest Hospital , London, UK
                [4 ]London Ambulance Service NHS Trust , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Charles Knight; charles.knight@
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: and

                Cardiovascular Medicine



                Comment on this article