Revista espanola de cardiologia (English ed.) · 2016
Assessment of Smith Algorithms for the Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Presence of Left Bundle Branch Block.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Di Marco Andrea, Anguera Ignasi, Rodríguez Marcos, Sionis Alessandro, Bayes-Genis Antoni, Rodríguez Jany, Ariza-Solé Albert, Sánchez-Salado José Carlos, Díaz-Nuila Mario, Masotti Mónica, Villuendas Roger, Dallaglio Paolo, Gómez-Hospital Joan Antoni, Cequier Ángel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Recently, a new electrocardiography algorithm has shown promising results for the the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB). We aimed to assess these new electrocardiography rules in a cohort of patients referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).
METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study that included all patients with suspected myocardial infarction and LBBB on the presenting electrocardiogram, referred for pPCI to 4 tertiary hospitals in Barcelona, Spain.
RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were included. Fifty four (37%) had an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) equivalent. Among patients with STEMI, 25 (46%) presented in Killip class III or IV, and in-hospital mortality was 15%. Smith I and II rules performed better than Sgarbossa algorithms and showed good specificity (90% and 97%, respectively) but their sensitivity was 67% and 54%, respectively. In a strategy guided by Smith I or Smith II rules, 18 (33%) or 25 (46%) patients with STEMI would have not received a pPCI, respectively. Moreover, the severity and prognosis of STEMI patients was similar regardless of the positivity of Smith rules. Cardiac biomarkers were positive in 54% of non-STEMI patients, limiting their usefulness for initial diagnostic screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of STEMI in the presence of LBBB remains a challenge. Smith rules can be useful but are limited by suboptimal sensitivity. The search for new electrocardiography algorithms should be encouraged to avoid unnecessary aggressive treatments in the majority of patients, while providing timely reperfusion to a high-risk subgroup of patients.
METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study that included all patients with suspected myocardial infarction and LBBB on the presenting electrocardiogram, referred for pPCI to 4 tertiary hospitals in Barcelona, Spain.
RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were included. Fifty four (37%) had an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) equivalent. Among patients with STEMI, 25 (46%) presented in Killip class III or IV, and in-hospital mortality was 15%. Smith I and II rules performed better than Sgarbossa algorithms and showed good specificity (90% and 97%, respectively) but their sensitivity was 67% and 54%, respectively. In a strategy guided by Smith I or Smith II rules, 18 (33%) or 25 (46%) patients with STEMI would have not received a pPCI, respectively. Moreover, the severity and prognosis of STEMI patients was similar regardless of the positivity of Smith rules. Cardiac biomarkers were positive in 54% of non-STEMI patients, limiting their usefulness for initial diagnostic screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of STEMI in the presence of LBBB remains a challenge. Smith rules can be useful but are limited by suboptimal sensitivity. The search for new electrocardiography algorithms should be encouraged to avoid unnecessary aggressive treatments in the majority of patients, while providing timely reperfusion to a high-risk subgroup of patients.