[Patients with an acute myocardial infarct treated in a coronary unit or in a general cardiology ward A comparative study].

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronary care units have been accepted as the standard location for treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, controversy over their clinical impact, current role and cost-effectiveness still remains. Due to the increased incidence of coronary artery disease in Spain, coronary care units are often full, and patients with acute myocardial infarction must be cared for in a general cardiology ward.

METHODS: We have studied the features and results of 420 patients with acute myocardial infarction consecutively admitted to our hospital and compared patients cared for in the coronary care unit (329 [78%]) with those cared for in the cardiology ward (91 [22%]). Admission to cardiology ward or coronary care unit was based on the clinical judgment of emergency room physicians and the bed availability. No differences in age, sex, risks factors, prior history of coronary heart disease, blood pressure on admission, extension and complications of myocardial infarction were found between both groups.

RESULTS: The percentage of patients with evolved and non-Q wave acute myocardial infarction, and admission electrocardiogram not suggestive of infarction was significantly higher in ward group (23 versus 2.4%, p < 0.001; 19 versus 11%, p < 0.01; and 43 versus 15%, p < 0.01; respectively). Although patients admitted to the coronary care unit underwent intravenous thrombolysis and coronary artery revascularization procedures in a higher proportion, mortality was similar in both groups (14% for ward patients and 17% for coronary care unit patients). When patients with evolved or non-Q wave infarctions and those with admission electrocardiograms not suggestive of infarction were excluded from the analysis, mortality rates remained similar. Subgroups mortality was in general similar for patients cared for in cardiology ward or in coronary care unit, although patients without shock, with Killip class I or II, and older than 70 years, had a slightly lesser mortality when treated in the Cardiology ward (5 versus 11%, 6 versus 11%, and 14 versus 28%, respectively). By contrast, patients with shock, Killip class III or IV, and electrocardiogram at admission not suggestive of infarction, had a lesser mortality when cared for in coronary care unit.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that some subgroups of patients with acute myocardial infarction can be, if needed, effective and safely cared for in cardiology ward.