Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22619274›Full record

ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2012

Systems of care for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a report From the American Heart Association's Mission: Lifeline.

James G Jollis, Christopher B Granger, Timothy D Henry, Elliott M Antman, Peter B Berger, Peter H Moyer, Franklin D Pratt, Ivan C Rokos, Anna R Acuña, Mayme Lou Roettig and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Manual and Mechanical Induced Peri-Resuscitation Injuries-Post-Mortem and Clinical Findings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Improving Care of STEMI in the United States 2008 to 2012.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

James G JollisDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. james.jollis@duke.edu
Christopher B Granger
Timothy D Henry
Elliott M Antman
Peter B Berger
Peter H Moyer
Franklin D Pratt
Ivan C Rokos
Anna R Acuña
Mayme Lou Roettig
Alice K Jacobs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational guidelines call for participation in systems to rapidly diagnose and treat ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In order to characterize currently implemented STEMI reperfusion systems and identify practices common to system organization, the American Heart Association surveyed existing systems throughout the United States. METHODS AND

resultsA STEMI system was defined as an integrated group of separate entities focused on reperfusion therapy for STEMI within a geographic region that included at least 1 hospital that performs percutaneous coronary intervention and at least 1 emergency medical service agency. Systems meeting this definition were invited to participate in a survey of 42 questions based on expert panel opinion and knowledge of existing systems. Data were collected through the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline website. Between April 2008 and January 2010, 381 unique systems involving 899 percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals in 47 states responded to the survey, of which 255 systems (67%) involved urban regions. The predominant funding sources for STEMI systems were percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals (n = 320, 84%) and /or cardiology practices (n = 88, 23%). Predominant system characteristics identified by the survey included: STEMI patient acceptance at percutaneous coronary intervention hospital regardless of bed availability (N = 346, 97%); single phone call activation of catheterization laboratory (N = 335, 92%); emergency department physician activation of laboratory without cardiology consultation (N = 318, 87%); data registry participation (N = 311, 84%); and prehospital activation of the laboratory through emergency department notification without cardiology notification (N = 297, 78%). The most common barriers to system implementation were hospital (n = 139, 37%) and cardiology group competition (n = 81, 21%) and emergency medical services transport and finances (n = 99, 26%).

conclusionsThis survey broadly describes the organizational characteristics of collaborative efforts by hospitals and emergency medical services to provide timely reperfusion in the United States. These findings serve as a benchmark for existing systems and should help guide healthcare teams in the process of organizing care for patients with STEMI.

Indexed as

American Heart AssociationAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiology Service, HospitalCooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEmergency Medical ServicesHealth Care SurveysHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHospital CostsHumansInterinstitutional RelationsMyocardial InfarctionOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient AdmissionPatient Care Team

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.