Evidence Hub

Impact of Emergency Medical System Transportation in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Retrospective Study

J. G. Pereira, L. Abreu, H. Antunes, M. L. Gonçalves, B. Marmelo, D. Moreira, Luís Nunes, Jorge Oliveira Santos et al.

Acta Médica Portuguesa, 2020

5,702 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Emergency medical system transportation has been shown to reduce treatment times in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The authors studied the Portuguese National Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes to determine the nationwide impact of the emergency medical system transportation in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentric, nationwide, retrospective study of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients inserted in the National Registry from 2010 to 2017 was performed. The patients were divided into: Group I, composed of patients transported by emergency medical system, and Group II, patients arriving to the Emergency department by other means.

RESULTS

Of the 5702 patients studied, 25.9% were transported via emergency medical system. Rates of emergency medical system activation increased by 17% in the last 7 years. The emergency medical system provided a higher rate of transport to a percutaneous coronary intervention capable centre, of Emergency department bypass, of on-site fibrinolysis, and ensured a 59-minute reduction of the median reperfusion time (p < 0.001). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality.

DISCUSSION

In this nationwide cohort, emergency medical system transportation is associated with a reduction in reperfusion times. It provides a higher amount of salvaged myocardium and reduces the incidence of acute heart failure. However, emergency medical system use did not…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,702 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free