Does cardiac catheterization laboratory activation by electrocardiography machine auto-interpretation reduce door-to-balloon time?

• Published in: The American journal of emergency medicine Vol. 32; no. 11; pp. 1305 - 1310
• Main Authors: Min, Mun Ki, MD, Ryu, Ji Ho, MD, Kim, Yong In, MD, Park, Maeng Real, MD, Park, Yong Myeon, MD, Park, Sung Wook, MD, Yeom, Seok Ran, MD, Han, Sang kyoon, MD, Kim, Yang Weon, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.11.2014; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Cardiac Catheterization; Cardiology; Cardiology Service, Hospital; Coronary Angiography; Electrocardiography; Emergency; Emergency medical care; Female; Heart attacks; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis; Myocardial Infarction - therapy; Republic of Korea; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time-to-Treatment; Treatment Outcome; Republic of Korea
• ISSN: 0735-6757; 1532-8171
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.07.026

Abstract Objectives In an attempt to begin ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treatment more quickly (referred to as door-to-balloon [DTB] time) by minimizing preventable delays in electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation, cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) activation was changed from activation by the emergency physician (code heart I) to activation by a single page if the ECG is interpreted as STEMI by the ECG machine (ECG machine auto-interpretation) (code heart II). We sought to determine the impact of ECG machine auto-interpretation on CCL activation. Methods The study period was from June 2010 to May 2012 (from June to November 2011, code heart I; from December 2011 to May 2012, code heart II). All patients aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with STEMI were evaluated for enrolment. Patients who experienced the code heart system were also included. Door-to-balloon time before and after code heart system were compared with a retrospective chart review. In addition, to determine the appropriateness of the activation, we compared coronary angiography performance rate and percentage of STEMI between code heart I and II. Results After the code heart system, the mean DTB time was significantly decreased (before, 96.51 ± 65.60 minutes; after, 65.40 ± 26.40 minutes; P = .043). The STEMI diagnosis and the coronary angiography performance rates were significantly lower in the code heart II group than in the code heart I group without difference in DTB time. Conclusion Cardiac catheterization laboratory activation by ECG machine auto-interpretation does not reduce DTB time and often unnecessarily activates the code heart system compared with emergency physician–initiated activation. This system therefore decreases the appropriateness of CCL activation.