Factors influencing ambulance use
On an average, ambulance users were older than the patients who arrived by self-transport, and more likely to have health insurance coverage. Patients with an education level below college chose self-transport more frequently than patients with a college degree. In contrast, sex, marital and work status, income level and living arrangements did not influence the choice of means of transport (Table 1).
At the onset of symptoms, the majority of the patients were at home and with others. Prior to seeking care, 51.0% attempted some form of self-management and 3.0% consulted a doctor. The use of self-management. was associated with increased ambulance use, whereas consulting a doctor before seeking care was not related to ambulance use. Regarding bystanders, coworkers, friends or strangers appeared to prompt the use of ambulance (P=0.011), whereas family members or relatives did not influence the choice of transport (P=0.098). Additionally, place and time of the symptoms onset seemed to have no effect on the patients’ decision to choose ambulance transport (Table 1).
Risk factors and previous medical histories
Above 90% of the patients had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Patients with a family history of CAD were less likely to use the ambulance than those without any family history of CAD. Other risk factors that were examined, such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, and body mass index, were not related to ambulance use. Patients with a history of CAD or stroke used the ambulance more frequently. Additionally, patients with previous myocardial infarction also used the ambulance more frequently compared with patients without a history of myocardial infarction, but the difference was of marginal significance (P=0.057). The prevalence of a history of heart failure was similar between the two groups (Table 2).
The 3 most commonly reported symptoms were chest pain (90.9%), perspiration (71.9%) and nausea or vomiting (32.3%). PA within 48 hours of onset of the infarction occurred in 50.3% of the sample population, and patients with PA were less likely to use an ambulance when compared with those without PA. Additionally, ambulance users reported more dyspnea, anxiety, and dizziness or syncope than patients in the self-transport group. However, location of pain and other associated symptoms were not associated with ambulance use (Table 3).
Regarding the influence of cognitive factors, patients who attributed their symptoms to cardiac origin and perceived their symptoms to be serious were more likely to use the ambulance than those who did not. Only 12.9% of the patients knew what CPR meant, and far fewer (3.7%) had been trained in CPR. Patients who knew the meaning of CPR and had received CPR training used an ambulance more frequently than those who did not (Table 4).
Predictors for not choosing ambulance transportation
As illustrated in Table 5, after multivariate logistic regression analysis, age <65 years, lower education level, presence of PA and attribution of symptoms to non-cardiac origin remained as the independent predictors for not using an ambulance. However, dyspnea, history of CAD, perceiving symptoms to be serious, and knowing the meaning of CPR appeared to be independent predictors of ambulance use.
Reasons for not calling for an ambulance
The main reasons for not calling for an ambulance were that most patients perceived self-transport to be more convenient (42.0%, n=168) due to their close proximity to the hospital; some patients believed that the symptoms were not severe enough (30.3%, n=121), and that the use of self-transport would enable them reach the hospital more quickly (21.0%, n=84). Additionally, 3.5% (n=14) stated that the cost of using an ambulance was an issue, 1.0% (n=4) stated that they were not aware of the emergency service numbers, and 2.2% (n=9) could not provide a reason for their decision.
Modes of transport in the self-transport group
In the self-transport group, the most common modes of transport were taxi (45.0%, n=180), private car (38.0%, n=152), and foot (8.3%, n=33). Additionally, 2.5% (n=10) arrived by bicycle, 3.0% (n=12) used the public transport, and 3.3% (n=13) used other means.
Three major findings are as follows: (1) a large proportion of patients did not call for an ambulance after the onset of STEMI symptoms; (2) the independent predictors influencing ambulance use included age >65 years, lower education level, presence of PA and attribution of symptoms to non-cardiac origin, whereas history of CAD, dyspnea, perceiving symptoms to be serious, and knowing the meaning of CPR appeared to be independent predictors of ambulance use; and (3) the main reasons for not using an ambulance were convenience and quickness of self-transport and the decreased severity of symptoms.
In accordance with the results of two other Chinese reports10,12 and several western studies,13–17 ambulance users had shorter pre-hospital delays than self-transport patients. Thus, an effective way to shorten the pre-hospital delay is to encourage the STEMI patients to use EMS in a timely manner. Calling for an ambulance is the recommended response for patients with STEMI in China, as it is in other countries. In the event of STEMI symptoms, contacting the EMS may improve survival in the long term because properly trained ambulance staff can record electrocardiograms (ECGs), administer relevant medical therapy and in the case of an obvious STEMI promote triage directly to a regional heart centre prepared to perform emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Unfortunately, the study showed that above two-third of the STEMI patients in Beijing presented to the hospital by self-transport; this is greatly higher than previous data obtained from western countries including Japan and South Korea.6–8,13
In this study, ambulance users were older than the non-ambulance users; this corroborates the findings of other research.18–22 Previous studies indicated that women used an ambulance more frequently.3,18 However, gender did not predict ambulance use in the present study. Hjälte et al20 reported that STEMI patients with a college degree were less likely to call for EMS when compared with those without a college degree. However, in contrast with their results, higher education level was associated with increased ambulance use in the present survey. Although the reasons for the decreased use of ambulance among patients with a lower education level are unknown, our finding at least partly reflects their difficulty in gaining and understanding health-related knowledge, failure to recognize the seriousness of STEMI symptoms and limited awareness of the importance of calling for an ambulance. Thus, it suggests that public health education should be provided through varied approaches, and the education programs must be sensitive to the capabilities of the targeted individuals with different education levels. It is logical that EMS use among underinsured and low-income patients may be influenced by economic considerations. Previous studies have found that ambulance use varied according to the income and type of health insurance.5,23,24 Unexpectedly, neither income level nor insurance status influenced ambulance use after controlling for other baseline characteristics. It should be noted that we did not differentiate the types of health insurance coverage in this study. Consequently, the association between health insurance and ambulance use may warrant further investigation.
Johansson et al7 found that of the patients calling for an ambulance, very few dialed the emergency service number themselves; it was usually the spouse (40%) or the general practitioner (32%) who called for the ambulance. In a survey of 962 community members enrolled in the REACT trial, Brown et al11 reported that 89% of the participants indicated that they would call “911” if they witnessed a cardiac event; however, only 23% of the patients who experienced symptoms of suspected acute coronary syndrome actually called the EMS. These findings suggest that bystanders may increase deliberative coping strategies in the event of a cardiac emergency. In the present study, we also found that coworkers, friends or strangers appeared to prompt the use of an ambulance, whereas family members or relatives did not influence the choice of transport. This suggests that family members and other significant people related to the high-risk individuals should be included while providing education as they play a key role in eliciting care-seeking behaviors.
Consistent with the published literature,3,4,17,21 we found that patients with a history of CAD used an ambulance more frequently than those without such a medical history. It is conceivable that recognition of previous CAD symptoms, more knowledge and better understanding of the disease, including the possible seriousness of new onset of symptoms, promoted EMS contact. However, none of the cardiovascular risk factors examined were found to be related to ambulance use, this may raise some questions regarding the efficacy of our health education interventions targeting high-risk patients.
The study indicated that patients with PA were less likely to call for an ambulance than those without PA. No reports have previously described the association between PA and ambulance use by STEMI patients. Nevertheless, it is easy to justify our finding. The clinical feature of PA is characterized by short anginal attacks preceding STEMI. Therefore, patients experiencing PA usually believed that the symptom would vanish or the pain would resolve by itself similar to prior short attacks. A previous study has demonstrated that patients who believed that their symptoms would resolve by themselves were less likely to avail an EMS. 15 Additionally, the incidence of intermittent pains prior to the attack may contribute to the failure to realize the life-threatening condition. McKinley et al24 reported that intermittent symptoms were related to increased patient delay in response to the STEMI symptoms. It is well known that STEMI patients, with preceding PA, usually have smaller infarcts and a better short- and long-term outcomes than those without PA.25,26 However, negative consequences of failure to call for an ambulance in a timely manner may greatly offset the protective effects of PA in these patients. Thus, our results suggest that interventions are required to provide awareness and knowledge regarding typical and atypical symptoms of STEMI as well as early warnings or prodromal symptoms, such as PA. In accordance with the previous studies,8,20 we also found that the patients who attributed their symptoms to non-cardiac origin were less likely to use an ambulance. The above findings further reinforce the importance of symptom interpretation in relation to care-seeking behavior.
As might be expected, knowledge of the value of CPR increased ambulance use in this study. It has been suggested that bystander CPR at least doubles the survival from cardiac arrest.27 In the study, a lot of patients were with family members at the time of symptom onset; the most common modes of self-transport were taxi and private car. Thus, it is important that family members of high-risk individuals and taxi drivers are taught to perform CPR effectively. However, our findings showed poor levels of knowledge and CPR training in Beijing. Thus, developing community resuscitation training program may be an effective strategy to further reduce mortality due to STEMI.
The reasons for under use of ambulances by patients with STEMI are not entirely understood. In this study, the main reasons for not calling an ambulance were as follows: the patients believed self-transport to be more convenient, the symptoms were not severe enough and they believed that self-transport would be quicker. Accordingly, we also found that perceiving symptoms to be serious is the strongest predictor of ambulance use. The last 2 reasons have been detected in other studies as well.6,7,18 These findings suggest that both the risks of self-transport and the potential benefits of using an ambulance were underestimated by many patients. Thus, the public health education system should emphasize that the ambulance is not merely a transportation modality and that it also provides rapid diagnosis and treatment; further, it can save lives, especially during cardiac events.
There are several limitations of this study that require mentioning. First, a cross-sectional observational design may pose concerns related to residual confounding. Second, information collected during the interview relied on the recall of events by the patients. However, in order to minimize the recall bias, the interview was conducted within a week of admission. Third, our sample only represented hospitalized STEMI patients who were admitted in two tertiary hospitals in Beijing within 24 hours of onset of symptoms. It did not include those who were pronounced dead at the site of an accident or who died on route and those who were admitted to other hospitals. Thus, caution should be exercised in generalizing our results to the entire STEMI population in Beijing.
In conclusion, a large proportion of patients residing in Beijing, China did not call for an ambulance after the onset of STEMI symptoms. Several factors including demographics, previous cardiovascular history, symptoms, and cognitive factors of patients were associated with the use of ambulance. The public should be educated that ambulance is not merely a transportation modality and that it also provides rapid diagnosis and treatment.
1. Critchley J, Liu J, Zhao D, Wang W, Capewell S. Explaining the increase in coronary heart disease mortality in Beijing between 1984 and 1999. Circulation 2004; 110: 1236-1244.
2. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, Green LA, Hand M, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction
; a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of patients with acute myocardial infarction
). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: E1-E211.
3. Canto JG, Zalenski RJ, Ornato JP, Rogers WJ, Kiefe CI, Magid D, et al. Use of emergency medical services in acute myocardial infarction
and subsequent quality of care: observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction
2. Circulation 2002; 106: 3018-3023.
4. Cabrita B, Bouyer-Dalloz F, L'Huillier I, Dentan G, Zeller M, Laurent Y, et al. Beneficial effects of direct call to emergency medical services in acute myocardial infarction
. Eur J Emerg Med 2004; 11: 12-18.
5. Hutchings CB, Mann NC, Daya M, Jui J, Goldberg R, Cooper L, et al. Patients with chest pain calling 9-1-1 or self-transporting to reach definitive care: which mode is quicker? Am Heart J 2004; 147: 35-41.
6. Hitchcock T, Rossouw F, McCoubrie D, Meek S. Observational study of prehospital delays in patients with chest pain. Emerg Med J 2003; 20: 270-273.
7. Johansson I, Stromberg A, Swahn E. Ambulance use
in patients with acute myocardial infarction
. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2004; 19: 5-12.
8. Kerr D, Holden D, Smith J, Kelly AM, Bunker S. Predictors
of ambulance use
in patients with acute myocardial infarction
in Australia. Emerg Med J 2006; 23: 948-952.
9. Thuresson M, Jarlöv MB, Lindahl B, Svensson L, Zedigh C, Herlitz J. Factors that influence the use of ambulance in acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2008; 156: 170-176.
10. Song L, Hu DY, Yan HB, Yang JG, Sun YH, Li C, et al. Influence of ambulance use
on early reperfusion therapies for acute myocardial infarction
. Chin Med J 2008; 121: 771-775.
11. Brown AL, Mann NC, Daya M, Goldberg R, Meischke H, Taylor J, et al. Demographic, belief, and situational factors influencing the decision to utilize emergency medical services among chest pain patients. Circulation 2000; 102: 173-178.
12. Wu Y, Zhang Y, Li YQ, Hong BL, Huang CX. Factors associated with the extent of care-seeking delay for patients with acute myocardial infarction
in Beijing. Chin Med J 2004; 117: 1772-1777.
13. Mckinley S, Dracup K, Moser DK, Ball C, Yamasaki K, Kim CJ, et al. International comparison of factors associated with delay in presentation for AMI treatment. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2004; 3: 225-230.
14. Fukuoka Y, Dracup K, Ohno M, Kobayashi F, Hirayama H. Predictors
of in-hospital delay to reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction
in Japan. J Emerg Med 2006; 31: 241-245.
15. Johansson I, Strömberg A, Swahn E. Factors related to delay times in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction
. Heart Lung 2004; 33: 291-300.
16. Goldberg RJ, Steg PG, Sadiq I, Granger CB, Jackson EA, Budaj A, et al. Extent of, and factors associated with, delay to hospital presentation in patients with acute coronary disease (the GRACE registry). Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 791-796.
17. McGinn AP, Rosamond WD, Goff DC Jr, Taylor HA, Miles JS, Chambless L. Trends in prehospital delay time and use of emergency medical services for acute myocardial infarction
: experience in 4 US communities from 1987-2000. Am Heart J 2005; 150: 392-400.
18. Lozzi L, Carstensen S, Rasmussen H, Nelson G. Why do acute myocardial infarction
patients not call an ambulance? An interview with patients presenting to hospital with acute myocardial infarction
symptoms. Intern Med J 2005; 35: 668-671.
19. Svenson JE. Patterns of use of emergency medical transport: a population-based study. Am J Emerg Med 2000; 18: 130-134.
20. Hjälte L, Suserud BO, Herlitz J, Karlberg I. Why are people without medical needs transported by ambulance? A study of indications for pre-hospital care. Eur J Emerg Med 2007; 14: 151-156.
21. Young T, Torner JC, Sihler KC, Hansen AR, Peek-Asa C, Zwerling C. Factors associated with mode of transport to acute care hospitals in rural communities. J Emerg Med 2003; 24: 189-198.
22. Grossman SA, Brown DF, Chang Y, Chung WG, Cranmer H, Dan L, et al. Predictors
of delay in presentation to the ED in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. Am J Emerg Med 2003; 21: 425-428.
23. Siepmann DB, Mann NC, Hedges JR, Daya MR. Association between prepayment systems and emergency medical services use among patients with acute chest discomfort syndrome. For the rapid early action for coronary treatment (REACT) study. Ann Emerg Med 2000; 35: 573-578.
24. McKinley S, Moser DK, Dracup K. Treatment-seeking behavior for acute myocardial infarction
symptoms in North America and Australia. Heart Lung 2000; 29: 237-247.
25. Kosuge M, Kimura K, Kojima S, Sakamoto T, Ishihara M, Asada Y, et al. Beneficial effect of preinfarction angina on in-hospital outcome is preserved in elderly patients undergoing coronary intervention for anterior acute myocardial infarction
. Circ J 2005; 69: 630-635.
26. Zahn R, Schiele R, Schneider S, Gitt AK, Seidl K, Bossaller C, et al. Effect of preinfarction angina pectoris on outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction
treated with primary angioplasty (results from the Myocardial Infarction
Registry). Am J Cardiol 2001; 87: 1-6.
27. Gallagher EJ, Lombardi G, Gennis P. Effectiveness of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA 1995; 274: 1922-1925.
Keywords:© 2009 Chinese Medical Association
myocardial infarction; predictors; ambulance use