Aims: To compare management and clinical outcomes in hospitals stratified by the availability of on-site catheterization in InTIME-II, a multicentre trial comparing alteplase with lanoteplase for acute myocardial infarction.
Methods and results: We studied 15,078 patients enrolled in 35 countries and 855 hospitals. Thirty-one percent of hospitals had 24-h, 25% day-only, and 44% no on-site catheterization facilities. Rates of cardiac angiography (57%, 38%, 26%) and revascularization (37%, 21%, 17%) were higher in hospitals with increasing access to on-site facilities(P<0.0001). The presence of a 24-h on-site facility was the strongest predictor of angiography during the index admission (odds ratio 4.17, 95% CI 3.85-4.54). There were no major differences in patient outcomes at 30 days when hospitals were stratified by availability of on-site catheterization. Adjusted 1-year mortality was similar between groups of hospitals (odds ratio for day-only 0.94 [0.80-1.09] and odds ratio for no availability 0.95 [0.83-1.10] compared to hospitals with 24-h facilities).
Conclusions: There is a marked variation in procedure use by the availability of on-site catheterization with no major differences in patient outcomes. There is a need for additional randomized trials in the current era to address both the appropriate selection of patients and timing of invasive procedures in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction.
Copyright 2001 The European Society of Cardiology.