TY - JOUR
T1 - Differentiating ST-elevation myocardial infarction from nonischemic ST-elevation in patients with chest pain
AU - Tran, Viet
AU - Huang, Henry D.
AU - Diez, Jose G.
AU - Kalife, Gerardo
AU - Goswami, Rajiv
AU - Paniagua, David
AU - Jneid, Hani
AU - Wilson, James M.
AU - Sherron, Scott R.
AU - Birnbaum, Yochai
PY - 2011/10/15
Y1 - 2011/10/15
N2 - Current guidelines state that patients with compatible symptoms and ST-segment elevation (STE) in <2 contiguous electrocardiographic leads should undergo immediate reperfusion therapy. Aggressive attempts at decreasing door-to-balloon times have led to more frequent activation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) protocols. However, it remains crucial to correctly differentiate STE myocardial infarction (STEMI) from nonischemic STE (NISTE). We assessed the ability of experienced interventional cardiologists in determining whether STE represents acute STEMI or NISTE. Seven readers studied electrocardiograms of consecutive patients showing STE. Patients with left bundle branch block or ventricular rhythms were excluded. Readers decided if, based on electrocardiographic results, they would have activated the pPCI protocol. If NISTE was chosen, readers selected from 12 possible explanations as to why STE was present. Of 84 patients, 40 (48%) had adjudicated STEMI. The percentage for which readers recommended pPCI varied (33% to 75%). Readers' sensitivity and specificity ranged from 55% to 83% (average 71%) and 32% to 86% (average 63%), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values ranged from 52% to 79% (average 66%) and 67% to 79% (average 71%), respectively. Broad inconsistencies existed among readers as to the chosen reasons for NISTE classification. In conclusion, we found wide variations in experienced interventional cardiologists in differentiating STEMI with a need for pPCI from NISTE.
AB - Current guidelines state that patients with compatible symptoms and ST-segment elevation (STE) in <2 contiguous electrocardiographic leads should undergo immediate reperfusion therapy. Aggressive attempts at decreasing door-to-balloon times have led to more frequent activation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) protocols. However, it remains crucial to correctly differentiate STE myocardial infarction (STEMI) from nonischemic STE (NISTE). We assessed the ability of experienced interventional cardiologists in determining whether STE represents acute STEMI or NISTE. Seven readers studied electrocardiograms of consecutive patients showing STE. Patients with left bundle branch block or ventricular rhythms were excluded. Readers decided if, based on electrocardiographic results, they would have activated the pPCI protocol. If NISTE was chosen, readers selected from 12 possible explanations as to why STE was present. Of 84 patients, 40 (48%) had adjudicated STEMI. The percentage for which readers recommended pPCI varied (33% to 75%). Readers' sensitivity and specificity ranged from 55% to 83% (average 71%) and 32% to 86% (average 63%), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values ranged from 52% to 79% (average 66%) and 67% to 79% (average 71%), respectively. Broad inconsistencies existed among readers as to the chosen reasons for NISTE classification. In conclusion, we found wide variations in experienced interventional cardiologists in differentiating STEMI with a need for pPCI from NISTE.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053968253&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053968253&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.008
DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 21791329
AN - SCOPUS:80053968253
SN - 0002-9149
VL - 108
SP - 1096
EP - 1101
JO - American Journal of Cardiology
JF - American Journal of Cardiology
IS - 8
ER -