Outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted in hospitals with or without catheterization laboratory: results from the HELIOS registry

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. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 16:85-90 (C) 2009 The European Society of Cardiology