Treatment of acute myocardial infarction: does the type of hospital make a difference? PPAMI Study Group

There is sparse data on the treatment practices being followed for acute myocardial infarction at various hospitals that differ in their financial infrastructure, availability of facilities and attachment to a medical college. In this prospective observational study, we evaluated the treatment practices for acute myocardial infarction, its appropriateness based on ACC/AHA guidelines and possible influence by type of hospital and certain patient characteristics. Thrombolysis, beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme-I inhibitors were used in 674 (63%), 506 (47%) and 413 (38%) respectively of 1072 patients. However, when evaluated according to ACC/AHA guidelines, appropriate use was noted in 83 percent, 78 percent and 99.3 percent, respectively. Thrombolysis was inappropriately denied to 14.7 percent patients whereas in 2.4 percent it was used contrary to recommendations. The most common reason for ineligibility for thrombolysis was late arrival. Beta-blockers were denied to 25.1 percent patients. Decision on use of angiotensin-converting enzyme-I was appropriate in most patients. Aspirin was used in 1027 (95.8%) patients. Government hospitals were least likely to thrombolyse a patient as compared to private, industrial and voluntary hospitals; however, this difference was not seen with the use of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme-I. Hospitals attached to medical colleges follow guidelines for use of thrombolysis and beta-blockers more closely than non-teaching hospitals. To conclude, evaluation of appropriateness of a therapeutic modality is of greater clinical significance than mere absolute use. Benefits of thrombolytic therapy can be extended by minimising pre-hospital delay; and there is scope for improved utility of beta-blockers which are cost-effective. In addition, the hospital type also has an impact on the treatment practice being followed for acute myocardial infarction.