1 / 29

R eperfusion of A cute Myocardial Infarction in C arolina E mergency Departments ( RACE ) Project

R eperfusion of A cute Myocardial Infarction in C arolina E mergency Departments ( RACE ) Project . COI Disclosure Related to This Presentation:. Research grants/contracts from

reynard
Download Presentation

R eperfusion of A cute Myocardial Infarction in C arolina E mergency Departments ( RACE ) Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reperfusion of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Carolina Emergency Departments (RACE) Project

  2. COI Disclosure Related to This Presentation: • Research grants/contracts from • Sanofi Aventis, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Procter and Gamble, Alexion, GlaxoSmithKline, BMS, Medicines Company, BlueCross BlueShield • Consulting fees/honoraria from • Sanofi Aventis, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Medicines Company Complete listing available at: http://www.dcri.duke.edu/research/coi.jsp

  3. The Problem • Death from heart attack is 3 times more common than death from motor vehicle crashes. • Rapid reperfusion is the most important way to improve early survival. • rapid PCI (or fibrinolysis if not available) • Before the RACE project, 1st door-to-balloon for patients transferred for PCI from non-PCI center was nearly 3 hours. • Lack of “systems” and coordination to rapidly and effectively treat heart attacks.

  4. Background • Transfer for PCI shown to be possible and effective in Europe • While RACE project was ongoing, we collaborated with other programs (Minneapolis, Boston, Maine, Los Angeles, D2B) • None in US had reported a comprehensive approach involving multiple PCI centers and multiple EMS systems in a statewide program • We hypothesized that such an approach could provide an umbrella to manage barriers of competing practices and hospitals and encourage broad participation

  5. RACE Objectives Establish a state-wide system for reperfusion, as exits for trauma care, to overcome systematic barriers to: 1) Increase speed of reperfusion 2) Increase reperfusion rate Organize regions Baseline data Intervention Post data 2005 Q3 2005 2006 Q1 2007

  6. RACE Centers and Regions65 hospitals (10 PCI, 55 non PCI) Durham-Chapel Hill- Greensboro Winston-Salem Asheville Charlotte 10 PCI centers 16 Transfer for PCI 28 Lytics 11 Mixed East Carolina Each non-PCI center was assessed for reperfusion designation based on resources, transfer ability, and transfer time to PCI center

  7. Asheville: Mission Hospitals, Asheville (PCI) Angel Medical Center, Franklin Harris Regional Hospital, Sylva Haywood Regional Medical Center, Waynesville Highlands-Cashiers, Highlands Mc Dowell Hospital, Marion Murphy Medical Center, Murphy Pardee Hospital, Hendersonville Park Ridge Hospital, Fletcher Rutherford Hospital, Rutherfordton Spruce Pine Community Hospital, Spruce Pine St. Luke's Hospital, Columbus Transylvania Community Hospital, Brevard Charlotte: Carolinas Medical Center (CMC) (PCI) CMC-Mercy (PCI) Presbyterian Hospital (PCI), Charlotte CMC- Lincoln, Lincolnton CMC- Pineville, Charlotte CMC-Union, Monroe CMC-University, Charlotte Cleveland Medical Center, Shelby Lake Norman Regional Hospital, Mooresville Presbyterian Hospital, Huntersville Presbyterian Hospital, Matthews Rowan Regional Medical Center, Salisbury Durham-Greensboro-Chapel-Hill: Duke University Medical Center, Durham (PCI) Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, Greensboro (PCI) North Carolina Memorial Hospital, Chapel-Hill (PCI) Alamance Regional Medical Center, Burlington Annie Penn Hospital, Reidsville Chatham Hospital, Siler City Franklin Regional Medical Center, Louisburg Maria Parham Medical Center, Henderson Durham-Greensboro-Chapel-Hill (continued) Morehead Memorial Hospital, Eden Person Memorial Hospital, Roxboro Randolph Hospital, Asheboro Sampson Regional Medical Center, Clinton Wesley Long Community Hospital, Greensboro East North Carolina: Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Greenville (PCI) Beaufort County Hospital, Washington Bertie Memorial Hospital, Windsor Chowan Hospital, Edenton Duplin General Hospital, Kenansville Halifax Regional Medical Center, Roanoke Rapids Heritage Hospital, Tarboro Lenoir Memorial Hospital, Kinston Martin General Hospital, Williamston Nash General Hospital, Rocky Mount Onslow Memorial, Jacksonville Our Community Hospital, Scotland Neck Pungo District Hospital, Belhaven Roanoke-Chowan hospital, Ahoskie Washington County Hospital, Plymouth Winston-Salem: Forsyth Medical Center, Winston-Salem (PCI) Wake Forest University/Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem (PCI) Alleghany Memorial Hospital, Sparta Ashe Memorial Hospital, Jefferson Davis Regional Medical Center, Statesville Hugh Chatham Memorial Hospital, Elkin Iredell Memorial Hospital, Statesville Northern Hospital of Surry County, Mount Airy Lexington Memorial Hospital, Lexington Thomasville Medical Center, Thomasville Twin County Regional Hospital, Galax Wilkes Regional Medical Center, N. Wilkesboro RACE Participating Hospitals by Region 5 Regions, 65 hospitals

  8. Organization • Supported by grant from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina • Nurse coordinator and steering committee (EMS, ED, nursing, hospital administration, QI experts, cardiology) for each region • Buy-in from all PCI centers in each region Co-funded RACE Regional Coordinators • Co-sponsored by NC Chapter of ACC with focus on the patient by promoting ACC/AHA STEMI guidelines • Data systems support from Genentech

  9. Organization Physician leaders • Akinyele Aluko • Robert Applegate • Joseph Babb • Peter Berger • David Bohle • Sidney Fletcher • J. Lee Garvey • Robert Hathaway • James Hoekstra • Robert Kelly • William Maddox Regional Coordinators • Marla Jordan, RN • Lourdes Lorenz, RN, MSN • Lisa Monk, RN, MSN • Mary Printz, RN, FNP-C • Stephanie Starling-Edwards, RN • Jenny Underwood, RN Central Steering Committee and Statistics • James Jollis, MD • Chris Granger, MD • Mayme Roettig, RN, MSN • Kevin Anstrom, PhD Physician leaders (continued) • Joseph Shiber • Greg Tarleton • F. Scott Valeri • Bradley Watling • Hadley Wilson Oversight Board • Robert M. Califf • Pamela Douglas • Robert Harris • Greg Mears • William O’Neill

  10. RACEInterventions OPERATIONS MANUAL Optimal system specifications by point of care • EMS • Non-PCI and PCI ED • Transfer • Catheterization lab • Other system issues – payers, regulations • Choice of PCI or lytic reperfusion regimens available at www.nccacc.org

  11. RACEInterventions • Focus on SYSTEMATIC BARRIERS to care • STEMI team – hospital administration, ED, EMS, nursing, cardiology • Prespecified reperfusion plan for hospital and region • Prehospital ECGs, interpretation, and earliest activation • Emergency physician (or paramedic) able to activate the cath lab • Intense education with focus on EMS and EDs

  12. RACEInterventions PCI Hospitals • Single number cath lab activation • Accept all STEMI patients regardless of bed availability • Ongoing QI and data feedback– NRMI database • RACE Regional Coordinator Responsible for improving process in every hospital - EMS system in the region

  13. Data CollectionDistinct but overlapping databases • Non-PCI hospital data • Regional coordinators abstracted data from (10) consecutive charts from STEMI reperfusion candidates in non-PCI EDs • Emergency Department data only • Feedback to all stakeholders • Not linked to PCI hospital data to satisfy HIPPA restrictions • PCI hospital data • RACE NRMI 5 system report

  14. 10 PCI Centers 55 Non-PCI Centers Pre-intervention Post-intervention Jul 05 to Mar 06 Jan to Mar 2007 n= 518 n= 407 no reperfusion no reperfusion transferred from non-PCI presented directly transferred from non-PCI presented directly lytic treated lytic treated transferred for 1° PCI transferred for 1° PCI Patient Flow Diagram1164 patients at PCI Centers and 925 at non-PCI centers Pre-intervention Post-intervention July to Sept 2005 Jan to Mar 2007 n= 579 n= 585

  15. RACE resultsPatient features PCI hospital Non-PCI hospital Pre Post Pre Post n 579 585 518 407 Age (years, median) 60 61 62 61 ≥ 75 years 20% 19% 22% 20% Female 33% 28% 33% 30% Chest pain at presentation 93% 96% 90% 89% Killip III/IV 4.7% 4.3% 2.7% 5.5% Initial reperfusion strategy No reperfusion 23% 11% 15% 15% Fibrinolysis (pre transfer) 28% 25% 45% 39% Primary PCI 48% 63%40% 46% CABG 1.7% 1.5% -- --

  16. RACE resultsArrival and transfer features PCI hospital Non-PCI hospital Pre Post Pre Post n 579 585 518 407 Arrival mode Self-transport 11% 12% 57% 56% Ambulance 71% 63% 42% 44% Helicopter 16% 21% -- -- Pre-hosp ECG 41% 61% 38% 43% Transferred from another hosp 61% 53% -- -- Transferred to a PCI hosp -- -- 92% 95% Transfer mode EMS ground 40% 43% Critical care transport 34% 24% Helicopter 25% 43% AMI Hotline used 32% 85%

  17. RACE resultsPCI hospital interventions 10 total hospitals

  18. RACE resultsPCI hospital interventions 10 total hospitals

  19. RACE resultsNon-PCI hospital interventions 55 total hospitals

  20. RACE resultsNon-PCI hospital interventions 55 total hospitals

  21. RACE resultsNon-reperfusion rates P<0.001 % without reperfusion

  22. RACE resultsPCI hospitals: Door to device times P<0.001 P<0.001* P<0.001 P=0.01 median times in minutes * Remained significant in analysis accounting for clustering

  23. RACE resultsNon-PCI hospitals: Reperfusion times P<0.001* P<0.001 P=0.002 median times in minutes * Remained significant in analysis accounting for clustering

  24. RACE resultsReperfusion rates P<0.001 P<0.001 % of patients PCI centers Direct presenters Non-PCI centers

  25. RACE results vs secular trends:PCI hospitals *NRMI participating hospitals Median time in minutes

  26. Clinical outcomes PCI hospitals *To show a 0.5% reduction (7.0 to 6.5%) with  0.05, 80% power would take 80,000 randomized patients

  27. Summary and Conclusions • RACE represents the largest regional STEMI reperfusion system in the United States. • We focused on moving care forward: enabling EMS to diagnose and ED personnel to initiate treatment, with improved communication, integration, and data feedback. • All times – door-to-balloon at PCI centers, door-in to door out in non-PCI centers, 1st door-to-balloon in transfer patients, and door-to-needle for fibrinolysis – were significantly improved. • Improved application of reperfusion care on a broad scale is possible and should be a high national priority.

  28. RACE Regional Coordinators

  29. Now available online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/

More Related