Strategic Placement Of Emergency Care Services Reduces Heart Attack Deaths

TL;DR

Before you orderOffer from Amazon

Get health and wellness essentials delivered free with Prime

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
• Member-only deals all year

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

A study of 590,282 California heart attack hospitalizations found that opening a hospital able to perform PCI near communities without timely access was associated with increased procedure use and lower mortality. In communities that already had a PCI facility within a 30-minute drive, another opening modestly increased access and treatment but did not significantly change mortality.

A study of 590,282 California heart attack hospitalizations found that mortality fell after a facility offering percutaneous coronary intervention opened within a 30-minute drive of communities that previously lacked that access. The UCSF-led research, published in JAMA Network Open, found no significant mortality change after another facility opened in areas where PCI was already nearby, underscoring that the location of specialized emergency care can matter as much as added capacity.

Researchers examined hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in California from 2011 through 2022, comparing outcomes after a PCI-capable facility opened within a 30-minute drive. PCI, or percutaneous coronary intervention, is a procedure that restores blood flow through blocked arteries. Providing it requires hospitals to invest in specialized facilities, equipment and personnel.

In communities without prior timely access, a new facility was associated with a 53% relative increase in admission to a PCI-capable hospital and a 16% increase in patients receiving the procedure. Thirty-day mortality declined by 20% and one-year mortality by 15%, the study reported. These are relative changes as presented in the source; the supplied report does not give the underlying mortality rates.

The pattern differed where PCI was already available within 30 minutes. Opening another facility was associated with a 2% increase in admission to a PCI-capable hospital and a 3% increase in procedure use, but no significant change in mortality. The study reports associations following facility openings; the figures alone do not establish that every change in outcomes was caused by the new facility.

Where PCI Capacity May Save Lives

The findings speak to decisions by hospitals and policymakers about where to place expensive specialist services. A facility may expand treatment options without producing a measurable survival improvement if nearby services already exist. In contrast, placing capacity where patients previously faced a geographic barrier was associated with both greater PCI use and lower short- and longer-term mortality.

The results are especially relevant to rural communities. Among 52,756 rural heart attack patients in the study, 81% lived in areas without a PCI-capable facility within a 30-minute drive at the beginning of the study. That figure describes the study population and period; it is not a current estimate of rural access across California or the United States.

Facility decisions can be shaped by expected procedure volume and financial returns, the researchers said. The study suggests that planning based only on where demand is already concentrated may miss areas where new services could address a major access gap. It does not, by itself, establish the best location for any specific future facility.

The Study’s Access Comparison

The research was led by investigators at the University of California, San Francisco, including senior author Renee Y. Hsia, a professor of emergency medicine. It builds on earlier work by Hsia and colleagues that examined procedure volumes after PCI facilities opened. That earlier study found a 7.5% increase in PCI procedures in a community overall, with a nearly 20% increase in areas lacking timely access and about an 8% increase where PCI was already available.

The new analysis addresses a related but distinct question: whether additional procedure capacity was accompanied by improved patient outcomes. Its comparison was based on whether a PCI-capable hospital was within a 30-minute drive before a new facility opened. The results therefore concern access as defined by that travel-time measure, rather than every factor that can affect emergency treatment, such as ambulance routing, hospital capacity or individual clinical circumstances.

The paper, by Y.-C. Shen and R. Y. Hsia, is titled “Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Facility Access and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.” It was published in JAMA Network Open in 2026.

“Americans tend to think more is better, but where you put these services really matters.”

— Renee Y. Hsia, UCSF professor of emergency medicine and senior author

What the California Data Cannot Show

The supplied study summary does not provide the absolute mortality rates behind the reported relative declines, confidence intervals, or detailed information about how researchers accounted for other differences between communities. Without the underlying rates, readers cannot calculate the number of deaths associated with the reported changes from this summary alone.

The findings are based on California hospitalizations over 2011–2022. The available information does not establish whether the same pattern would apply in other states, health systems or periods, or how much each facility opening itself contributed to outcomes. It also does not specify the costs of new facilities or compare PCI investment with other ways to improve emergency heart attack care. The study reports no significant mortality change in communities that already had nearby access; that is not proof that every additional facility has no benefit.

Implications for Facility Planning

The report does not announce a new facility or a policy change, and it does not identify a specific next research milestone. Its immediate implication is for health systems and policymakers weighing where to place specialized services: assess existing travel-time access and the size of unmet need alongside expected procedure volume.

Further work would be needed to test whether the findings hold in other regions and to clarify how facility openings relate to outcomes after accounting for local differences. For now, the study adds evidence that the potential value of new PCI capacity may depend on whether it closes a substantial access gap.

Key Questions

What is PCI?

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a procedure used to restore blood flow through blocked arteries. The study examined access to hospitals able to perform PCI for patients hospitalized with heart attacks.

What happened when a PCI facility opened near an underserved community?

In areas without prior access within a 30-minute drive, a new facility was associated with more admissions to PCI-capable hospitals, more patients receiving PCI, and lower 30-day and one-year mortality.

Did another nearby PCI facility reduce deaths?

In communities that already had PCI within a 30-minute drive, a new opening was associated with small increases in hospital admissions and procedure use, but the study found no significant change in mortality.

How many rural patients lacked nearby PCI access?

Of 52,756 rural heart attack patients in the study, 81% lived in places without a PCI-capable facility within a 30-minute drive at the beginning of the study period.

Does the study prove that opening a facility caused the mortality decline?

The study reports associations after facilities opened. The supplied summary does not establish that the openings alone caused the observed mortality changes or show whether the results apply beyond California.

Source: rss