![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delay in the treatment of acute coronary
syndromes
Robin M Norris
Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is the major mode of death in
the acute coronary syndromes (ACS). VF occurs most commonly at or near the onset
of an acute ischaemic episode and is most readily treated by defibrillation when
it happens within an hour or so of the onset. It follows that the proper
management of patients with ACS is to provide them with access to a
defibrillator as soon as possible after they call for help. Ambulances carry
defibrillators and paramedics are trained to use them.
Delay in coming under care is the most potent avoidable risk
factor for patients with developing heart attacks, and the risk from not having
immediate access to a defibrillator is greater than the risk of more serious
damage to the myocardium from delay in delivery of thrombolysis or primary
angioplasty.1,2.
In this issue of the Journal, Garofalo and
colleagues3 from Middlemore Hospital in
Auckland, New Zealand describe the delay from onset of symptoms to defibrillator
availability in 805 consecutive patients with ACS admitted over an 18-month
period during 2009–2010. Defibrillator availability was defined as the
time of arrival at hospital or the time of arrival of an ambulance, whichever
was the sooner. Middlemore Hospital was an ideal site for the study since it
serves the population of South Auckland with its mix of ethnicity and degree of
social deprivation.
Results of the study are important and give cause for
concern. The median time from onset to defibrillator availability was nearly 3
hours, the most important determinant of delay being the patient's behaviour in
calling for help. For the 43% of patients whose first call was to the ambulance,
the median time from onset to defibrillator availability was 1¼ hours, but
for the 34% who called their general practitioner the time was 9¼ hours, a
full 8 hours longer than if they had called the ambulance.
Māori, Pacific Islanders, and Asian Indians as well as
patients from areas of high social deprivation were less likely to call the
ambulance. The assumption must be that patients arriving with the longest delays
must increasingly be a population of survivors who have had the good fortune to
have escaped the complication of VF which happens in perhaps 10–20% of
ACS, most commonly over the first few hours. Those who have died before they
reach hospital are of course unaccounted for.
Only 20 (2.5%) of the 802 Middlemore patients had a cardiac
arrest, and we are not told whether these arrests happened in the ambulance or
in hospital or how many survived to be discharged from hospital. Again the
assumption must be that an avoidable number of patients died outside hospital
because of unnecessary delay.
What needs to be done? First, we need to know to what extent
the problems at Middlemore Hospital happen throughout New Zealand. We also need
to know the relationship between delay and success of defibrillation both in and
out of hospital. This implies collaboration between hospital clinicians and the
ambulance service, and a seamless national audit of the treatment of ACS both
inside and outside hospital. A recent publication in this
Journal4 confirms the vital role of the
ambulance service in preventing death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Second, we need to re evaluate the role of the general
practitioner in dealing with patients with putative ACS. Of course the
Middlemore data tell us only the bare facts, and there may be legitimate reasons
for delay in many cases. Many patients may delay calling the GP until after
their symptoms have abated and are probably at low risk of arrest. Many
practices may have defibrillators and can safely evaluate patents in their
surgeries, ordering an emergency ambulance for those with continuing pain or
with ST segment elevation in the electrocardiogram. Nevertheless, the Middlemore
study raises important questions.
What happens when a patient with acute chest pain telephones
his or her GP? If this happens during working hours, the call will be answered
by a receptionist. Is the call referred immediately to the doctor, is the
patient give the next available appointment, or are receptionists instructed to
advise patients to call 111 for an emergency ambulance? If the call happens
outside working hours does the recorded message from the surgery specifically
advise patients with emergencies such as acute chest pain, breathlessness or
bleeding to call the ambulance directly, or is some less specific advice
given?
Nearly 20 years ago, the National Heart Foundation
instigated a public educational campaign in New Zealand (Heart Attack
Action!) which gave the message "Chest pain lasting more than 15 minutes.
Call 111 for the ambulance." The aim of the campaign was to raise funds for all
ambulances carrying cardiac patients to be equipped with defibrillators so that
patients with ACS could be protected during their journey to hospital. But
disappointingly only a minority (43%) of the Middlemore Hospital patients called
the ambulance, and Māori, Pacific Islanders and socially deprived people
were less likely to do so than less deprived European New Zealanders.
A recent publication from the UK Myocardial Ischaemia
National Audit Project (MINAP)5 on more than
600,000 patients treated between 2003 and 2010 reported that nearly 60% had
called the emergency services and the proportion doing so was greater in older
then in younger patients.
We need a repeat of Heart Attack Action!, but this
may not be sufficient because "one-off" campaigns of this type have had limited
success.6–8 As with advice against
smoking, public health education may take years or decades to be effective,and
in other countries (Denmark and Germany in
particular9) campaigns to reduce patient delay
in calling for help are continuing. Here in New zealand, advice on Heart
Attack Action! could be usefully combined with public education on optimum
dietary and lifestyle factors for primary prevention of coronary heart
disease.
Competing interests: None
declared.
Author information: Robin M Norris was
cardiologist in charge of the Coronary-Care Unit at Green Lane Hospital and
Honorary Professor of Cardiovascular Therapeutics at the University of Auckland
School of Medicine until 1992. After 1992 he was an honorary consultant
cardiologist at the Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK from where he
directed the UK Heart Attack Study and helped to set up the UK Myocardial
Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP). He is now retired.
Correspondence: Dr Robin Norris, 17
Aberdeen Rd, Castor Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: robinnorris@orcon.net.nz
References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |