==== Front Ann Saudi MedAnn Saudi MedAnnals of Saudi Medicine0256-49470975-4466King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre 2597182010.5144/0256-4947.2014.482asm-6-482Original ArticleQuality of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment -elevation myocardial infarction: Gulf RACE 2 experience Shehab Abdulla aAl-Habib Khalid bHersi Ahmed cAl-Faleh Husam dAlsheikh-Ali Alawi eAlmahmeed Wael fSuleiman Kadhim J. gAl-Motarreb Ahmed hAl Suwaidy Jassim iAsaad Nidal iAlSaid Shukri jHashim Muhammad kAmin Haitham l a Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates b King Fahad Cardiac Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia c King Fahd Cardiac Center, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia d Department of Cardiology, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia e Institute of Cardiac Sciences, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates f Institute of Cardiac Sciences, Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates g Department of Cardiology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman h Department of Medicine, Sana’s University, Sana’a, Yemen i Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation j Department of Cardiology, Saud AlBabtain Cardiac Center, Dammam, Saudi Arabia k Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates l Department of Cardiology, Mohammed Bin Khalifa Cardiac Center, Manama, BahrainCorrespondence: A Shehab, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates, T: +971506161028, F: +97137672 995, a.shehab@uaeu.ac.aeNov-Dec 2014 34 6 482 487 Copyright © 2014, Annals of Saudi Medicine2014This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has been recognized as an effective management strategy for acute ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is no first-hand information regarding the quality of pPCI procedures in the Arabian Gulf countries. This study aims to explore the quality of pPCI practice. DESIGN AND SETTINGS The Gulf Race II was designed as a prospective, multinational, multicentre registry of acute coronary events, focusing on the epidemiology, management practices, and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome. The study recruited consecutive patients aged 18 years and above from 65 hospitals in 6 adjacent Middle Eastern countries (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen). PATIENTS AND METHODS We used data from the Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE 2). We analyzed data on patients who received pPCI to assess the guidelines-supported performance measure of door-to-balloon (D2B) ≤ 90 minutes and its impact on morbidity and mortality. RESULTS Of 3432 patients with STEMI, slightly more than half (53%, n=1832) were admitted to a hospital with a cardiac catheterization laboratory (Cath-Lab). Of these, only 1006 patients (55%) received reperfusion therapy, and pPCI was used in a small predominantly male subgroup (11% of the STEMI cohort admitted to hospitals with Cath-Lab, n=198). The median D2B time in the pPCI cohort was 85 minutes, and a D2B of ≤90 minutes was achieved in only 55%. Patients with timely pPCI (D2B ≤ 90 minutes) were less likely to have cardiogenic shock and require intra-aortic balloon pump. In-hospital, 1-month and 1-year mortality were not statistically in favor of timely pPCI. CONCLUSION Primary PCI was underused in the Gulf region with low rate of acute reperfusion and no timely pPCI and thus no mortality benefit. ==== Body ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a common condition associated with high mortality.1 However, there has been a considerable decline in mortality as a consequence of improvements in initial therapy, including fibrinolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Despite the improvement in overall management (fibrinolysis and pPCI) of STEMI, time is of paramount importance for initiating thrombolysis and performing pPCI in improving survival.2 The America College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommended that all STEMI patients should undergo rapid evaluation for reperfusion therapy and have reperfusion strategy implemented promptly after contact with the medical system.3,4 Based on available data from clinical trials, it is concluded that the state-of-the-art management for patients with STEMI is pPCI and is considered as a preferred method of reperfusion.5 Several trials have shown that time ≤90 minutes has been associated with smaller infarct sizes, fewer major adverse cardiovascular events, and better long-term survival.6–11 International guidelines in the management of patients with STEMI recommended several performance measures to monitor the quality of delivered patient care.12 Of particular interest are the door-to-balloon (D2B) time (arrival at hospital to pPCI) and overall health care system delay (first medical contact to reperfusion); both of these are acknowledged as valuable performance indicators.13–16 A previous study in the Arabian Gulf countries, where the prevalence of STEMI is considerably high, showed that about 30% of patients with STEMI arrived at hospital more than 12 hours from the onset of chest pain.17 In all, pPCI as a preferred reperfusion strategy in STEMI requires optimal systems of care and logistics to enable rapid treatment of all patients. In this study, we aim to explore the quality of pPCI practice and its impact on morbidity and mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE 2) study was conducted between October 2008 and June 2009 in 6 Arabian Gulf countries (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, UAE, and Yemen). The study protocols were approved by the institutional ethical review boards of all the participating hospitals. Details of the methodology have been previously described.18 Of the total STEMI patients, we extracted data for analysis from patients who have had pPCI, as indicated in Figure 1. Statistical analysis All data were analyzed using SPSS, version 20.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL USA). Descriptive summary measures were obtained. Chi-square test or Fischer exact test were used to compare between groups. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of morbidity and mortality. Statistical significance was set at a 0.05 level. RESULTS Among the 7930 patients with acute coronary syndrome in the GULF RACE 2 registry, 3432 were diagnosed with STEMI (based on electrocardiography [ECG] at presentation). Of these, 1832 were admitted to the surveyed hospitals with cardiac catheterization laboratory facilities. However, only 198 (10.8%) patients received pPCI. These patients had a mean age of 54.0 (11.8) years, were mostly males (87%), and often overweight or obese across all age groups. Our cohort pPCI patients had significant coronary risk factors: 40.8% dyslipidemia, 49.2% diabetes mellitus, 35.5% hypertension, and 54.5% smokers. A significant proportion also had a previous history of coronary artery disease who have had pPCI (12.6%), as shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the characteristics of patients who received timely pPCI (D2B ≤ 90 minutes) versus delayed pPCI (D2B > 90 minutes). The use of ambulance services was substantially low (<30%) in both groups, but not significantly lower in delayed pPCI patients (27.7% vs. 16.6%; P=.06). Timely pPCI was seen more frequenty in the age group between 40 and 59 years. Majority of patients (91%) arrived at hospital within 12 hours from the onset of chest pain. We did not find significant differences between the groups (timely pPCI-D2B ≤90 minutes versus delayed pPCI-D2B >90 minutes) pertaining to age, body mass index, comorbid conditions, hospital arrival time (on/off working hours), STEMI type on ECG, and clinical vital signs. Table 3 shows no significant differences in medication and types of stents used in both groups, except for the loading dose of 600 mg clopidorgrel in favor of timely pPCI (68.5% vs. 48.9%; P=.02). Table 4 shows that unadjusted cardiogenic shock and Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use were significantly higher in delayed pPCI. DISCUSSION Despite strong recommendations for reperfusion therapy (thrombolysis or pPCI), only 55% of STEMI patients presented to our catheterization laboratory (Cath-Lab) capable hospitals received reperfusion therapy (mainly pharmacological [80%]). Reasons for missing any means of reperfusion have been reported to be multifactorial; in particular, advanced age, comorbid conditions, hypertension, and stroke, as in our cohort of patients. Many strategies to increase the use of appropriate life-saving therapies have been recommended, which include community and physician awareness programs, among other things.19–22 Of particular focus, however, is the significant small proportion of 198 (10.8%) STEMI patients who received mechanical reperfusion as pPCI. Although the reasons for these findings were not very clear, the majority of patients were males, often overweight or obese. In addition, patients who received pPCI have had a significant history of myocardial infarction, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and previous PCI. Prehospital delays may account for up to 75% of time to treatment delays.23 The majority of our patients arrived at hospital within 12 hours from the onset of chest pain. The mean and median delay were 4.4 hours and 2.1 hours, respectively; only 37% of them presented within 2 hours of onset of ischemic symptoms, as similar studies have reported.24–27 Although it is class 1 recommendation for patients with symptoms suggestive of a possible STEMI to seek medical attention promptly by activating the emergency response system, only 22.7% of our pPCI cohort patients used ambulance. Most patients either drove themselves or had a friend or family member drive them to hospital. The underuse of emergency services was also reported in well-established health care system.28 It has been shown that direct ambulance transport of STEMI patients to the Cath-Lab can significantly reduce D2B time and subsequently improve the delivery of pPCI and clinical outcomes.2,29 Such benefits persist regardless of time from the onset of chest pain and baseline risk of mortality.2,12 In our study cohort, we found that more patients with timely pPCI were transported by ambulance. Nonetheless, patients with STEMI frequently present during off hours (6.00 pm–8.00 am and weekends), and many of our health care facilities were challenged to maintain the availability of pPCI around the clock. This had no effect on patients receiving timely pPCI and hence no effect on outcome. Other studies reported similar findings of pPCI during off hours, partly.30,31 We have observed that patients who received timely pPCI were mainly among the age group 40 to 59 years. Comparing the countries, the highest proportion of timely pPCI was achieved in Bahrain (77%), perhaps due to the single-center nature of pPCI program in Bahrain. Such information may be useful for the effective education of particular patient populations and to identify cultural, language, political, and/or financial barriers that may exist to access and/or use care. Consistent with recent recommendations, there were more use of higher loading dose of 600 mg clopidogrel in all pPCI patients but more significantly in those who received timely pPCI, as this also was shown to contribute to a better outcome.32 Regarding in-hospital clinical outcomes, we have noticed that unadjusted cardiogenic shock and IABP use were significantly lower in timely pPCI. However, after adjusting for all patients’ covariates, the differences were attenuated and remained weakly significant. There were no significant differences in other morbidity and mortality components between the groups perhaps due to the small sample size and hospital variability across the participating countries. Taken all together, the findings highlighted that the majority of hospitals in the Arabian Gulf countries do not meet the required international guidelines on the management of pPCI. Accomplishing a high performance level is an organizational challenge. Recent regional efforts are drawing attention to the importance of D2B time as a key indicator of quality of care for patients with STEMI treated with pPCI. Delays in D2B time have been consistently associated with poorer outcomes in many studies. More importantly, it provides an open, vibrant community for hospitals to share their findings to save lives by reducing the D2B times in hospitals performing pPCI. Thus, a coordinated effort among clinicians, administrators, other health care professionals, emergency units, across all hospitals (within country), may provide a better diagnosis and treatment approaches for STEMI patients. The provision of pPCI Cath-Lab program, where absent, and intensive training for Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) physicians, nurses, radiology technicians, and other paramedical staff should be considered as priority to effective reduction in D2B time across the 6 adjacent Gulf countries. Also, improved emergency services and mass patient education programs may improve the use of ambulance services. A particular focus should be given to improving regional awareness in facilitating the adoption of evidence-based practices. Limitations Our study has several limitations. First, as with most other registries, the study results may not be representative of clinical practice in all hospitals in the region. However, the wide geographic distribution of several hospitals from different health care sectors in our study provides a reasonable overall representation of pPCI care. Second, there is an inherent selection bias because of the observational nature of the study design and the possibility of missing unmeasured important co-variables. Third, the sample size was small in subgroups. Nevertheless, the ongoing Gulf RACE 3 may provide-up-to-date data about emergency medical services for acute STEMI patients in the Gulf. In summary, our data shows that only a small number of patients with STEMI were treated with pPCI, partly due to the lack of pPCI Cath-Lab program and an ineffective ambulance services use. The D2B time (timely PCI) is suboptimal across almost all participating countries. If patients were treated within an appropriate reperfusion strategy according to their clinical risk, arrival time may have no influence on mortality. There is a pressing need for coordinated efforts among the Gulf countries to achieve improved prehospital and in-hospital patient care to meet international guidelines for pPCI treatment among patients with STEMI. Acknowledgments and funding Gulf RACE is a Gulf Heart Association (GHA) project and was financially supported by the GHA, Sanofi Aventis, and the College of Medicine Research Center at King Khalid University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The sponsors had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, writing of the report, or submission of the manuscript. Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article. Figure 1 Cohort patients with STEMI and analyzed sample size of pPCI from the Gulf RACE 2 registry. Table 1 The clinical characteristics of patients with STEMI presenting to hospitals with catheterization laboratory, by type of therapy (n=1832). Variables No reperfusion (N=826) Reperfusion (N=1006) P value TT (n=808) pPCI (n=198) N (%) N (%) N (%) Age (y) 0001  Less than 30 12.0 (1.5) 12.0 (1.5) 2.0 (1.0)  30–39 70.0 (8.5) 81.0(10.1) 15.0 (7.6)  40–49 215.0 (26.0) 278.0 (34.4) 59.0 (29.8)  50–59 236.0 (28.6) 263.0 (32.5) 59.0 (29.8)  60–69 154.0 (18.6) 121.0 (15.0) 37.0 (18.7)  70–79 88.0 (10.7) 45.0 (5.6) 24.0 (12.1)  80+ 51.0 (6.2) 8.0 (1.0) 2.0 (1.0) Gender  Male 708.0 (85.7) 742(91.8) 174 (87.9) .0001 BMI (kg/m2) .052  <18.5 23.0 (2.8) 15.0 (1.9) 2.0 (1.0)  Normal 18.5–24.9 306.0 (37.1) 289.0 (35.8) 78.0 (39.6)  Overweight 25–29.9 341.0 (41.3) 364.0 (45.1) 66.0 (33.5)  Obese 30–34.9 115.0 (13.9) 112.0 (13.9) 38.0 (19.3)  Morbid obesity 35–40 26.0 (3.2) 17.0 (2.1) 10.0 (5.1)  ≥40 14.0 (1.7) 10.0 (1.2) 3.0 (1.5) WC (cm) .256  <88 205.0 (40.6) 145.0 (35.0) 19.0 (31.1)  88–102 213.0 (42.2) 193.0 (46.6) 33.0 (54.1)  >102 87.0 (17.2) 76.0 (18.4) 9.0 (14..8) Past medical history  CAD 183.0 (22.5) 161.0 (20.1) 50.0 (25.5) .204  MI 104.0 (13.0) 77.0 (9.7) 29.0 (14.8) .044  PCI 31.0 (3.8) 39.0 (4.8) 25.0 (12.6) .0001  CABG 8.0 (1.0) 6.0 (0.7) 3.0 (1.5) .592  HF 13.0 (1.6) 11.0 (1.4) 6.0 (3.0) .256  VHD 5.0 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.5) .089  Stroke/TIA 42.0 (5.1) 14.0 (1.7) 7.0 (3.5) .001  CKF 14.0 (1.7) 7.0 (0.9) 2.0 (1.0) .292  PAD 12.0 (1.5) 6.0 (0.8) 2.0 (1.0) .365  DM 313.0 (38.7) 243.0 (30.5) 97.0 (49.2) .000  Hypertension 310.0 (38.0) 259.0 (32.5) 70.0 (35.5) .073  Hyperlipidemia 145.0 (20.6) 150.0 (24.2) 60.0 (40.8) .0001  Family history of PCAD 67.0 (9.0) 82.0 (11.5) 32.0 (18.1) .002 Key: pPCI: primary percutaneous coronary intervention: N: frequency; (%): percentage; TT: thrombolytic therapy; BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; CAD: coronary artery disease; MI: myocardial Infarction; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; HF: heart failure; VHD: valvular heart disease; TIA: transient ischemic attack; CKF: chronic kidney failure; PAD: peripheral arterial disease; DM: diabetes mellitus; PCAD: premature coronary artery disease (family history). Table 2 Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who received timely vs. delayed pPCI. Variable Timely pPCI (≤90 min) [N=108] Delayed pPCI (>90 min) [N=90] P value Age (y) .027  <30 1.0 (0.9) 1.0 (1.1)  30–39 4.0 (3.7) 11.0 (12.2)  40–49 36.0 (33.3) 23.0 (25.6)  50–59 39.0 (36.1) 20.0 (22.2)  60–69 15.0 (13.9) 22.0 (24.4)  70–79 13.0 (12.0) 11.0 (12.2)  80+ 0.0 (0.0) 2.0 (2.2) Age (mean±SD) 53.4 (10.7) 54.8 (12.9) .41 Gender  Male 97.0 (89.8) 77.0 (85.6) .389 BMI (kg/m2) .718  18.5–24.9 44.0 (40.7) 36.0 (40.4)  25–29.9 37.0 (34.3) 29.0 (32.6)  30+ 27.0 (25.0) 24.0 (26.9) Clinical history  DM 48.0 (44.4) 49.0(55.1) .154  Hypertension 40.0 (37.0) 30.0 (33.7) .656  History of angina 23.0 (21.7) 27.0 (30) .193  History of MI 15.0 (14.0) 14.0 (15.7) .840  History of previous PCI 13.0 (12.0) 12.0 (13.3) .832  History of CABG 1.0 (0.9) 2.0 (2.2) .592  History of HF 1.0 (0.9) 5.0 (5.6) .095  Smoking 63.0 (58.3) 45.0 (50.0) .255 Mode of arrival to hospital .063  Ambulance 30.0 (27.7) 15.0 (16.6)  Private 78.0 (72.2) 75.0 (83.3) Time since onset of chest pain  <12 h 94.0 (90.7) 87.0 (96.6) .02  <2 h 42.0 (38.8) 32.0 (35.5) .66 ECG findings  Anteroseptal 52.0 (48.1) 52.0 (57.8) .192  Inferior 31.0 (28.7) 23.0 (25.6) .634  Posteriolateral 25.0 (23.1) 15.0 (16.7) .289 Presenting characteristics  SBP>90 mmHg 105.0 (95.4) 84.0 (93.3) .551  Killip class I 97.0 (89.8) 75.0 (83.3) .208 Time of presentation .669  8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 53.0 (49.1) 41.0 (45.6)  Off clinic hours 55.0 (50.9) 49 (54.4) D2B in min Mean (SD) 57 (19) 175 (143) .0001 Median (minimum-maximum) 60 (13–89) 121 (90–1248) All countries 108.0 (54.5) 90.0 (47.2) .00001  Bahrain 43.0 (76.8) 13.0 (23.2)  UAE 15.0 (71.4) 6.0 (28.6)  Qatar 10.0 (62.5) 6.0 (37.5)  Saudi Arabia 38.0 (40.9) 55.0 (59.1)  Yemen 2.0 (22.2) 7.0 (77.8)  Oman 0.0 (0.0) 3.0 (100.0) Key: pPCI: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention; N: frequency; BMI: Body mass index; DM: diabetes mellitus; MI: myocardial infarction; CABG: coronary angio bypass grafting; HF: heart failure; ECG: electrocardiogram; SBP: systolic blood pressure; Killip class I: includes individuals with no clinical signs of heart failure; AM: Morning; PM: evening. Table 3 Medications on admission (home), during hospitalization and at discharge from hospital. Variable Timely PCI (<90 min) (N=108) Delayed PCI (> 90 min) (N=90) P value First 24 h of admission  Aspirin 107.0 (99.1) 88.0 (97.8) .432  Clopidogrel 107.0 (99.1) 88.0 (97.8) .432  Loading 600 mg 74.0 (68.5) 44.0 (48.9) .025  Beta-blocker 89.0 (82.4) 73.0 (81.1) .478  ACEi/ARB 81.0 (75.0) 70.0 (77.8) .387  Statin 107.0 (99.1) 87.0 (96.7) .231 Prior to PCI  Anticoagulation 101.0 (93.5) 79.0 (87.7) .162  GPIIbIIIa inhibitor 68.0 (55.7) .0 .389 Type of stents:  BMS 57.0 (54.3) 40.0 (50.0) .738 At discharge:  Aspirin 103.0 (95.3) 82.0 (91.1) .260  Clopidogrel 103.0 (95.3) 82.0 (91.1) 260  Beta-blocker 98.0 (90.7) 76.0 (85.4) .271  ACEi/ARB 83.0 (76.9) 73.0 (82.0) .385  Statin 104.0 (96.3) 80.0 (89.9) .085 Key: ACEi: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker; GIIbIIIa: glycoprotein 2b-3a inhibitor. Table 4 Clinical outcomes, type of reperfusion therapy. Outcome Timely PCI (<90 min) [N = 108] Delayed PCI (>90 min) [N = 90] P value In hospital complications Recurrent ischemia/Re-infarction 16.0 (14.8) 9.0 (10.0) .392 HF 12.0 (11.1) 12.0 (13.3) .633 Ventilation 6.0 (5.6) 11.0 (12.2) .095 IABP 4.0 (3.7) 10.0 (11.1) .043 Inotrope 14.0 (12.9) 17.0 (8.8) .326 Cardiogenic shock 7.0 (8.5) 15.0 (16.6) .023 VT/VF 5.0 (4.6) 9.0 (10.0) .17 Stroke 0.0 (0.0) 2.0 (2.2) .201 Mortality In-hospital 3.0 (2.8) 7.0 (7.8) .19 1 mo 4.0 (3.7) 8.0 (8.8) .14 1 y 8.0 (7.4) 14.0 (15.5) .11 Key: N: Frequency; HF: heart failure; IABP: intra-aortic balloon pump; VT/VF: ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Wood FO1 Leonowicz NA Vanhecke TE Mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who do not undergo reperfusion Am J Cardiol 2012 110 4 509 14 22633204 2 McNamara RL Wang Y Herrin J NRMI Investigators Effect of door-to-balloon time on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction J Am CollCardiol 2006 47 11 2180 6 3 Steg PG James SK Gersh BJ ESC STEMI guidelines and reperfusion therapy: Evidencebased recommendations, ensuring optimal patient management Heart 2013 99 16 1156 7 23827860 4 Fox KA1 Goodman SG Klein W Management of acute coronary syndromes. Variations in practice and outcome; findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) Eur Heart J 2002 23 15 1177 89 12127920 5 Wailoo AJ Goodacre S Sampson F Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an economic analysis of the National Infarct Angioplasty Project Heart 2010 96 9 668 72 19508972 6 Keeley EC Boura JA Grines CL Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials Lancet 2006 367 9510 579 88 16488801 7 Dryja T1 Kornacewicz-Jach Z Goracy J Treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in West Pomerania province of Poland. Comparison between primary coronary intervention and thrombolytic therapy Kardiol Pol 2006 64 6 591 16810577 8 Brodie BR Hansen C Stuckey TD Doorto-balloon time with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction impacts late cardiac mortality in high-risk patients and patients presenting early after the onset of symptoms J Am Coll Cardiol 2006 17 47 2 289 95 16412849 9 Cannon CP Gibson CM Lambrew CT Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time an door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction JAMA 2000 283 22 2941 7 10865271 10 Kumbhani DJ1 Cannon CP Fonarow GC Get With the Guidelines Steering Committee and Investigators Association of hospital primary angioplasty volume in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with quality and outcomes JAMA 2009 302 20 2207 13 19934421 11 Estevez-Loureiro R Lopez-Sainz A Perez de Prado A Timely reperfusion for STsegment elevation myocardial infarction: Effect of direct transfer to primary angioplasty on time delays and clinical outcomes World J Cardiol 2014 26 6 6 424 33 24976914 12 Terkelsen CJ Time to treatment-door-to-balloon time is not everything Herz 2014 Abstract 24980984 13 Bradley EH1 Nallamothu BK Herrin J National efforts to improve door-to-balloon time results from the Door-to-Balloon Alliance J Am Coll Cardiol 2009 15 54 25 2423 9 20082933 14 Lassen JF1 Botker HE Terkelsen CJ Timely and optimal treatment of patients with STEMI Nat Rev Cardiol 2013 10 1 41 8 23165072 15 Rasmussen MB1 Frost L Stengaard C Diagnostic performance and system delay using telemedicine for prehospital diagnosis in triaging and treatment of STEMI Heart 2014 100 9 711 5 24637516 16 ThorstedSorensen J1 Steengaard C Holmvang L Primary percutaneous coronary intervention as a national Danish reperfusion strategy of ST-elevation myocardial infarction] Ugeskr Laeger 2013 175 4 181 5 23347734 17 Al-Mallah MH1 Alsheikh-Ali AA Almahmeed W Missed opportunities in the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the Arab Middle East: patient and physician impediments Clin Cardiol 2010 33 9 565 71 20842741 18 Alhabib KF Sulaiman K Al-Motarreb A Gulf RACE-2 investigators Baseline characteristics, management practices, and long-term outcomes of Middle Eastern patients in the Second Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2) Ann Saudi Med 2012 32 1 9 18 22156634 19 Steg PG James SK Gersh BJ 2012 ESC STEMI guidelines and reperfusion therapy: Evidence-based recommendations, ensuring optimal patient management Heart 2013 99 16 1156 7 23827860 20 Fox KA1 Goodman SG Klein W Management of acute coronary syndromes. Variations in practice and outcome; findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) Eur Heart J 2002 23 15 1177 89 12127920 21 Wood FO1 Leonowicz NA Vanhecke TE Mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who do not undergo reperfusion Am J Cardiol 2012 110 4 509 14 22633204 22 Al-Mallah MH1 Alsheikh-Ali AA Almahmeed W Missed opportunities in the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the Arab Middle East: patient and physician impediments Clin Cardiol 2010 33 9 565 71 20842741 23 Weaver WD Time to thrombolytic treatment: factors affecting delay and their influence on outcome J Am Coll Cardiol 1995 25 7 Suppl 3S 9S 7775711 24 Welsh RC Ornato J Armstrong PW Prehospital management of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a time for reappraisal in North America Am Heart J 2003 145 1 1 8 12514646 25 Goff DC Jr Feldman HA McGovern PG Prehospital delay in patients hospitalized with heart attack symptoms in the United States: the REACT trial. Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) Study Group Am Heart J 1999 138 6 Pt 1 1046 57 10577434 26 Goldberg RJ Steg PG Sadiq I Extent of, and factors associated with, delay to hospital presentation in patients with acute coronary disease (the GRACE registry) Am J Cardiol 2002 1 89 7 791 6 11909560 27 Goldberg RJ Osganian S Zapka J Prehospital delay in individuals with acute coronary disease: concordance of medical records and follow-up phone interviews Cardiology 2002 97 3 159 65 12077569 28 Canto JG Zalenski RJ Ornato JP Use of emergency medical services in acute myocardial infarction and subsequent quality of care: observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction Circulation 2002 106 24 3018 23 12473545 29 Qiu JP1 Zhang Q Lu JD Direct ambulance transport to catheterization laboratory reduces door-to-balloon time in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the DIRECT-STEMI study Chin Med J Engl 2011 124 6 805 10 21518584 30 de Boer SP1 Oemrawsingh RM Lenzen MJ Primary PCI during off-hours is not related to increased mortality EurHeart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2012 1 1 33 9 31 Kim SS1 Jeong MH2 Rhew SH1 Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators Impact of patients’ arrival time on the care and in-hospital mortality in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction Am J Cardiol 2014 113 2 262 9 24295548 32 Beigel R Fefer P Rosenberg N Antiplatelet effect of thienopyridine (clopidogrel or prasugrel) pretreatment in patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction Am J Cardiol 2013 112 10 1551 6 23972349