On-Site Catheterization Laboratory and Prognosis After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Solomon Behar, Hanoch Hod, Boaz Benari, Ron Narinsky, Hana Pauzner, Eldad Rechavia, Hedy E. Faibel, Amos Katz, Arie Roth, Ehud Goldhammer, Nahum A. Freedberg, Natan Rougin, Oscar Kracoff, Chen Shapira, Jamal Jafari, Chaim Lotan, Fatchy Daka, Shmuel Gottlieb, Tedi Weiss, Menahem KanettiMark Klutstein, Leonid Rudnik, Eddy Barasch, Nabil Mahul, David Blondheim, Alen Gelvan, Gabriel Barbash

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


Background: Since the introduction of thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction, the use of coronary angiography has substantially increased. We sought to determine whether the presence of on-site coronary angiographic facilities influenced the utilization of coronary procedures in patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized in Israel's coronary care units. Methods: A prospective survey was conducted in January and February 1992 in the 25 coronary care units operating in Israel, 15 of which had on-site catheterization facilities. Data on demographics, clinical features, thrombolytic therapy, and the type of coronary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures performed during the current in-hospital stay were recorded. Mortality, both in-hospital and 1 year after discharge, was assessed for all patients in the survey. Results: One thousand fourteen consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction were hospitalized during the survey, 307 (30%) of whom were admitted to 10 coronary care units without and 707 of whom were treated in hospitals with on-site coronary angiography facilities. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Thrombolytic therapy was provided equally (46%) to patients admitted to hospital with and without catheterization laboratories. Patients admitted to hospitals with these laboratories underwent coronary angiography (26%) and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and/or coronary artery bypass grafting (12%) in greater numbers than counterparts admitted to hospitals without such laboratories (10% and 5%, respectively). Hospital and cumulative 1-year mortality rates were 11% and 18%, respectively, in patients admitted to hospitals with on-site catheterization facilities vs 10% and 17%, respectively, in the patient group admitted to the other hospitals. Patients receiving thrombolytic therapy had similar hospital mortality rates unrelated to the availability of coronary catheterization laboratories. Conclusion: This national survey showed that the availability of invasive coronary facilities led to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic coronary procedures among patients with acute myocardial infarction. There was no difference in hospital or 1-year mortality rates in patients admitted to hospitals with or without on-site coronary angiographic facilities.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)813-817
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Issue number8
StatePublished - 24 Apr 1995
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'On-Site Catheterization Laboratory and Prognosis After Acute Myocardial Infarction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this