Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 64. Issue 7.
Pages 631-632 (July 2011)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 64. Issue 7.
Pages 631-632 (July 2011)
DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2011.03.006
Full text access
Effect of Opening a New Catheterization Laboratory on Myocardial Infarction Patients
Impacto en pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio de la apertura de un nuevo laboratorio de hemodinámica
Visits
...
Manuel F. Jiménez-Navarroa,
Corresponding author
jimeneznavarro@secardiologia.es

Corresponding author: jimeneznavarro@secardiologia.es
, Antonio J. Muñoz-Garcíaa, Nieves Romero-Rodríguezb, Eduardo de Teresa-Galvána
a Área del Corazón, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Investigadores de RECAVA (Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Enfermedades Cardiovasculares del Instituto de Salud Carlos III), Spain
b Área del Corazón, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain
Related content
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64:96-10410.1016/j.rec.2010.06.011
Daniel Bosch, Rafel Masia, Joan Sala, Joan Vila, Rafel Ramos, Roberto Elosua, Isaac Subirana, Magda Heras, Juan Sanchis, María Grau, Ramon Brugada, Jaume Marrugat
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Full Text

To the Editor,

We have read with great interest the overall results of the study of Bosch et al.,1 from the REGICOR group, concerning the impact of opening a new catheterization laboratory in a given geographical area, recently published in the Revista Española de Cardiología .

This work reports relevant findings in a small sample of patients, relating them to those of other similar studies. These previous works present divergent results, as expressed by the authors in the discussion section of the articles,2, 3 concerning the benefits of coronary angiography and eventual revascularization (mainly percutaneous) in patients being treated for acute myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, in the study we comment on, the myocardial infarction patients treated after a catheterization laboratory had been opened within the REGICOR framework, in which on-site revascularization procedures were not performed, had a better 30-day survival rate.

In previous reports, as the authors acknowledge, the benefits of a greater availability of catheterization laboratories appears to be explained in terms of the wider use of evidence-based medical therapies,3 such as beta blockers and statins, which are strongly associated with short-term survival. Another important clinical variable that could explain the 30-day mortality rate would be the delay in the administration of fibrinolytic therapy. What was the influence of these variables on the multivariate model shown in Figure 1?

Finally, we would like to congratulate the authors for this highly interesting study which poses the debate as to the importance of increasing the availability of diagnostic procedures such as coronary angiography, which facilitate the optimal treatment of myocardial infarction patients, including coronary revascularization. The reason for these good results may be the utilization of this diagnostic tool, which leads to a greater number of revascularization procedures in patients at higher risk, precisely those who need it most. Previous registries in Spain, like the DESCARTES registry, revealed that these interventions were less frequently employed in the patients that most needed them, those at highest risk,4 and dissociated the efficacy from the effectiveness of certain diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.5 Studies like that of Bosch et al deliver an important message regarding the utility of diagnostic and therapeutic tools in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Funding

Article partially subsidized by a research grant from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Disease Research Network, or RECAVA (Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Enfermedades Cardiovasculares), of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain.

.

Corresponding author: jimeneznavarro@secardiologia.es

Bibliography
[1]
Bosch D, Masia R, Sala J, Vila J, Ramos R, Elosua R, et al..
Impacto de la apertura de un nuevo laboratorio de hemodinámica sobre la supervivencia a 30 días y a 2 años en los pacientes con infarto de miocardio..
Rev Esp Cardiol. , 64 (2011), pp. 96-104
[2]
Krumholz HM, Chen J, Murillo JE, Cohen DJ, Radford MJ..
Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities..
Circulation. , 98 (1998), pp. 2010-2016
[3]
Labarere J, Belle L, Fourny M, Genes N, Lablanche JM, Blanchard D, et al..
Outcomes of myocardial infarction in hospitals wih percutaneous coronary intervention facilities..
Arch Intern Med. , 167 (2007), pp. 913-920
[4]
Heras M, Bueno H, Bardají A, Fernández-Ortiz A, Marti H, Marrugat J, DESCARTES Investigators..
Magnitude and consequences of undertreatment of high-risk patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: insights from the DESCARTES Registry..
Heart. , 92 (2006), pp. 1571-1576
[5]
Jiménez-Navarro MF, Cabrera-Bueno F, Muñoz-García AJ, de Teresa-Galván E..
Ensayos clínicos y práctica clínica en el «mundo real». ¿Conocemos los factores de confusión entre la eficacia y la efectividad?..
Rev Esp Cardiol. , 62 (2009), pp. 332-333
Idiomas
Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?