Search

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effect of systematic data analysis and standardized feedback on treatment times and outcome in a prospective multicenter trial., Background: Formalized data feedback may reduce treatment times in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Methods: Over a 15-month period, 1,183 patients presenting with STEMI were enrolled. Six primary percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals in Germany and 29 associated nonpercutaneous coronary intervention hospitals participated. Data from patient contact to balloon inflation were collected and analyzed. Pre-defined quality indicators, including the percentage of patients with pre-announced STEMI, direct handoff in the catheterization laboratory, contact-to-balloon time <90 min, door-to-balloon time <60 min, and door-to-balloon time <30 min were discussed with staff on a quarterly basis., Results: Median door-to-balloon time decreased from 71 to 58 min and contact-to-balloon time from 129 to 103 min between the first and the fifth quarter (p < 0.05 for both). Contributing were shorter stays in the emergency department, more direct handoffs from ambulances to the catheterization laboratory (from 22% to 38%, p < 0.05), and a slight increase in the number of patients transported directly to the percutaneous coronary intervention facility (primary transport). One-year mortality was reduced in the total group of patients and in the subgroup of patients with primary transport (p < 0.05). The sharpest fall in mortality was observed in patients with primary transport and TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) risk score ≥ 3 (n = 521) with a decrease in 30-day mortality from 23.1% to 13.3% (p < 0.05) and in 1-year mortality from 25.6% to 16.7% (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Formalized data feedback is associated with a reduction in treatment times for STEMI and with an improved prognosis, which is most pronounced in high-risk patients. (Feedback Intervention and Treatment Times in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [FITT-STEMI]; NCT00794001)., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rapid revascularization of the infarct-related artery importantly affects prognosis in the treatment of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Treatment results can be improved significantly when a STEMI-specific structure of care is created and when systematic quality improvement measures are implemented. The necessary structural measures include establishing or participating in myocardial infarction networks. When local hospitals collaborate in a network, it becomes feasible to offer round-the-clock primary coronary intervention to patients of those participating hospitals that do not have a catheterization laboratory on site. Another important structural step is to acquire and install prehospital twelve-lead ECG systems capable of remote telemetric transmission. This provides a solid basis for diagnosing STEMI with speed and accuracy and can prove to be highly effective in anchoring the chain of alert and treatment. As a consequence, two important goals can be realized: (1) intentionally bypassing the non-interventional hospital, and (2) systematically bypassing the emergency room of the interventional center. Both of these measures entail important time savings. An efficient instrument for improving treatment times is the implementation of a standardized quality improvement process with formalized data collection and analysis as well as with systematic data feedback to all systems and individuals involved in the early phase of treating STEMI patients within the hospital network including the emergency medical responder systems. The positive effect of such data feedback on treatment quality is contingent on the perception by all those involved that the data obtained for each patient are absolutely valid. Thus, those data need to be verifiable and an independent monitoring process should be created.Furthermore, the systematic use of standardized risk scores should be promoted in an effort to compare and adjust patient risk when analyzing network data. It is critically important that all appropriate patients-including those with a high risk of mortality--have access to rapid interventional treatment. Only when the individual risk of treated patients is taken into account will it be possible to compare quality of care and mortality rates. In general, the comparison between different hospitals, systems and regions is highly problematic and not feasible without considering local factors. It harbors the danger of inducing changes in practice in order to compete rather than in order to advance patient care, and thus it may be counterproductive when such a comparison leads to the implication that treatment may have been inferior. Therefore, the comparison of results (e.g., treatment times and mortality rates) should be undertaken as much as possible within an established system, with the use of a "before and after" design. Quality, then, will be defined as a documented consistent effort to improve results, and this approach will be distinctly productive. It is of fundamental importance that the involved hospitals, physicians and emergency staff perceive themselves as a team. The structures and processes outlined above can and should be applied broadly. The necessary resources will need to be provided through political and societal consensus. The multicenter FITT-STEMI project ("Feedback Intervention and Treatment Times in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction") is currently pursuing such an approach.

For many patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs), the time from presentation to percutaneous coronary intervention exceeds established goals. This study was conducted to examine the effects of formalized data assessment and systematic feedback on treatment times. All patients with STEMIs treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in a semi-rural 3-hospital network from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006, were prospectively analyzed (n = 114). Patients presenting during the first 3-month period (January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2006) were included as the reference group (n = 33). Time points from initial contact with the medical system to revascularization were assessed, analyzed, and presented in an interactive session to hospital and emergency services staff members. Data from patients with STEMIs presenting during the next 3 quarters were presented in the same manner (n = 28, 25, and 28). The median contact-to-balloon time was 113 minutes in the reference quarter, decreasing to 83, 66, and 74 minutes in the intervention groups (p <0.0001), whereas the median door-to-balloon time decreased from 54 minutes in the reference group to 35, 31, and 26 minutes in the intervention groups (p <0.0001). The proportion of patients with contact-to-balloon times <90 minutes increased from 21% to 79% (p <0.0001). There were significant reductions in the durations of initial treatment on location and in the emergency room and in puncture-to-balloon-time in the catheterization laboratory, and more patients were transported directly to the catheterization laboratory, bypassing the emergency room (from 23% in the reference quarter to 76% in the last intervention quarter, p <0.0001). In conclusion, formalized data feedback leads to marked reduction in revascularization times in patients with STEMIs.