> Details
Yiadom, Maame Yaa A. B.;
Baugh, Christopher W.;
McWade, Conor M.;
Liu, Xulei;
Song, Kyoung Jun;
Patterson, Brian W.;
Jenkins, Cathy A.;
Tanski, Mary;
Mills, Angela M.;
Salazar, Gilberto;
Wang, Thomas J.;
Dittus, Robert S.;
Liu, Dandan;
Storrow, Alan B.
Performance of Emergency Department Screening Criteria for an Early ECG to Identify ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Sharing
Reference
management
Direct link
Bookmarks
Remove from
bookmarks
Share this by email
Share this on Twitter
Share this on Facebook
Share this on Whatsapp
- Media type: E-Article
- Title: Performance of Emergency Department Screening Criteria for an Early ECG to Identify ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
- Contributor: Yiadom, Maame Yaa A. B.; Baugh, Christopher W.; McWade, Conor M.; Liu, Xulei; Song, Kyoung Jun; Patterson, Brian W.; Jenkins, Cathy A.; Tanski, Mary; Mills, Angela M.; Salazar, Gilberto; Wang, Thomas J.; Dittus, Robert S.; Liu, Dandan; Storrow, Alan B.
- imprint: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2017
- Published in: Journal of the American Heart Association
- Language: English
- DOI: 10.1161/jaha.116.003528
- ISSN: 2047-9980
- Keywords: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Origination:
- Footnote:
- Description: <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> Timely diagnosis of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ST</jats:styled-content> ‐segment elevation myocardial infarction ( <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> ) in the emergency department ( <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> ) is made solely by <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ECG</jats:styled-content> . Obtaining this test within 10 minutes of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> arrival is critical to achieving the best outcomes. We investigated variability in the timely identification of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> across institutions and whether performance variation was associated with the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> characteristics, the comprehensiveness of screening criteria, and the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> screening processes. </jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Methods and Results</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> We examined <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> screening performance in 7 <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> s, with the missed case rate ( <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCR</jats:styled-content> ) as our primary end point. The <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCR</jats:styled-content> is the proportion of primarily screened <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> patients diagnosed with <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> who did not receive an <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ECG</jats:styled-content> within 15 minutes of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> arrival. <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> was defined by hospital discharge diagnosis. Relationships between the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCR</jats:styled-content> and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> characteristics, screening criteria, and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> screening processes were assessed, along with differences in door‐to‐ <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ECG</jats:styled-content> times for captured versus missed patients. The overall <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCR</jats:styled-content> for all 7 <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> s was 12.8%. The lowest and highest <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCR</jats:styled-content> s were 3.4% and 32.6%, respectively. The mean difference in door‐to‐ <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ECG</jats:styled-content> times for captured and missed patients was 31 minutes, with a range of 14 to 80 minutes of additional myocardial ischemia time for missed cases. The prevalence of primarily screened <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED STEMI</jats:styled-content> s was 0.09%. <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> s with the greatest <jats:italic>informedness</jats:italic> (sensitivity+specificity−1) demonstrated superior performance across all other screening measures. </jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec xml:lang="en"> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p xml:lang="en"> The 29.2% difference in <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCRs</jats:styled-content> between the highest and lowest performing <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> s demonstrates room for improving timely <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">STEMI</jats:styled-content> identification among primarily screened <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> patients. The <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">MCR</jats:styled-content> and informedness can be used to compare screening across <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">ED</jats:styled-content> s and to understand variable performance. </jats:p> </jats:sec>
- Access State: Open Access