Does Inclusion of Emergency Medicine (EM) Residents in ECG Screening for STEMI Change the Time to Catheterization Lab Activation?

Sarah Aly, Kelsey Coolahan, Kirk Tomlinson, Duncan Grossman, Joseph Bove, Steven Hochman
{"title":"Does Inclusion of Emergency Medicine (EM) Residents in ECG Screening for STEMI Change the Time to Catheterization Lab Activation?","authors":"Sarah Aly,&nbsp;Kelsey Coolahan,&nbsp;Kirk Tomlinson,&nbsp;Duncan Grossman,&nbsp;Joseph Bove,&nbsp;Steven Hochman","doi":"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency medicine physicians must rapidly obtain and interpret an electrocardiogram (ECG) to quickly identify life-threatening cardiac emergencies such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Although ECG interpretation is a critical component of residency education, few high-powered studies exploring the accuracy of resident ECG interpretation exist.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to evaluate whether or not the inclusion of Third Year Emergency Medicine Resident ECG interpretations is noninferior to attending-only ECG interpretations in regard to time to STEMI activation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective noninferiority study of STEMI activation times before and after the inclusion of Third Year Emergency Medicine Resident resident ECG interpretations into the workflow at an academic, urban tertiary care center between November 2020 and April 2022, excluding prehospital activations. The primary outcome was the proportion of successful STEMI activations initiated within 5 minutes of ECG completion. An absolute decrease of 10% between groups was chosen as the noninferiority margin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the attending-only group, 26 (66.7%) cases resulted in successful STEMI activations compared to 31 cases (77.5%) in the combined group. The proportion of successful STEMI activations did not differ with resident screening, X 2 = 1.15, P = 0.28. The absolute difference between groups' successful activations was an increase of 11%, which lies within the noninferiority margin (+11%, 95% confidence interval, -8.68% to 30.7%). Average times to STEMI activation in the attending-only and combined groups were 7.59 minutes (Standard Deviation [SD], 10.19) and 5.13 minutes (SD, 6.95), respectively. Average door-to-balloon times for those undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention were 72.74 minutes (SD, 20.76) in the attending-only group and 89.90 minutes (SD, 67.74) in the combination group. Two sample t-test showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups for average time to STEMI activation (difference = 2.46 minutes, 95% CI, -1.46 to 6.38) and average door-to-balloon time (difference = 17.16, 95% CI, -39.73 to 5.41).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inclusion of emergency medicine PGY-3 residents in the ECG screening workflow is noninferior to attending-only interpretation of ECGs with regard to STEMI activation time.</p>","PeriodicalId":35914,"journal":{"name":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Emergency medicine physicians must rapidly obtain and interpret an electrocardiogram (ECG) to quickly identify life-threatening cardiac emergencies such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Although ECG interpretation is a critical component of residency education, few high-powered studies exploring the accuracy of resident ECG interpretation exist.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate whether or not the inclusion of Third Year Emergency Medicine Resident ECG interpretations is noninferior to attending-only ECG interpretations in regard to time to STEMI activation.

Methods: This was a retrospective noninferiority study of STEMI activation times before and after the inclusion of Third Year Emergency Medicine Resident resident ECG interpretations into the workflow at an academic, urban tertiary care center between November 2020 and April 2022, excluding prehospital activations. The primary outcome was the proportion of successful STEMI activations initiated within 5 minutes of ECG completion. An absolute decrease of 10% between groups was chosen as the noninferiority margin.

Results: In the attending-only group, 26 (66.7%) cases resulted in successful STEMI activations compared to 31 cases (77.5%) in the combined group. The proportion of successful STEMI activations did not differ with resident screening, X 2 = 1.15, P = 0.28. The absolute difference between groups' successful activations was an increase of 11%, which lies within the noninferiority margin (+11%, 95% confidence interval, -8.68% to 30.7%). Average times to STEMI activation in the attending-only and combined groups were 7.59 minutes (Standard Deviation [SD], 10.19) and 5.13 minutes (SD, 6.95), respectively. Average door-to-balloon times for those undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention were 72.74 minutes (SD, 20.76) in the attending-only group and 89.90 minutes (SD, 67.74) in the combination group. Two sample t-test showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups for average time to STEMI activation (difference = 2.46 minutes, 95% CI, -1.46 to 6.38) and average door-to-balloon time (difference = 17.16, 95% CI, -39.73 to 5.41).

Conclusion: The inclusion of emergency medicine PGY-3 residents in the ECG screening workflow is noninferior to attending-only interpretation of ECGs with regard to STEMI activation time.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将急诊医学(EM)住院医师纳入STEMI心电图筛查是否会改变导管实验室启动时间?
背景:急诊医师必须快速获取和解读心电图(ECG),以快速识别危及生命的心脏紧急情况,如st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)。虽然心电解释是住院医师教育的重要组成部分,但很少有高强度的研究探索住院医师心电解释的准确性。目的:本研究旨在评估在STEMI激活时间方面,纳入急诊医学三年级住院医师ECG解释是否不逊色于仅就诊的ECG解释。方法:这是一项回顾性非劣效性研究,研究了2020年11月至2022年4月期间,一家学术性城市三级医疗中心将三年级急诊医师住院医师心电图解读纳入工作流程前后的STEMI激活时间,不包括院前激活。主要终点是心电图完成后5分钟内成功启动STEMI的比例。选择组间绝对下降10%作为非劣效性边际。结果:在单独护理组中,26例(66.7%)成功激活STEMI,而联合治疗组为31例(77.5%)。STEMI成功激活的比例与住院筛查没有差异,x2 = 1.15, P = 0.28。两组之间成功激活的绝对差异增加了11%,这在非劣效性范围内(+11%,95%置信区间,-8.68%至30.7%)。单独护理组和联合护理组到STEMI激活的平均时间分别为7.59分钟(标准差[SD], 10.19)和5.13分钟(SD, 6.95)。经皮冠状动脉介入治疗组从门到球囊的平均时间为72.74分钟(SD, 20.76),联合治疗组为89.90分钟(SD, 67.74)。双样本t检验显示,两组间STEMI平均激活时间(差异= 2.46分钟,95% CI, -1.46 ~ 6.38)和平均门到球囊时间(差异= 17.16,95% CI, -39.73 ~ 5.41)无统计学差异。结论:将急诊医学PGY-3住院医师纳入心电图筛查工作流程,其对STEMI激活时间的解读不逊于仅由主治医师解读心电图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Pathways in Cardiology
Critical Pathways in Cardiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Critical Pathways in Cardiology provides a single source for the diagnostic and therapeutic protocols in use at hospitals worldwide for patients with cardiac disorders. The Journal presents critical pathways for specific diagnoses—complete with evidence-based rationales—and also publishes studies of these protocols" effectiveness.
期刊最新文献
Altered anthropometrics and HA1c levels, but not dyslipidemia, are associated with elevated hs-CRP levels in middle-aged adults: A population-based analysis. Role of Embolic Protection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention without Saphenous Venous graft lesions in ST-elevation myocardial infarction - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Peripheral Artery Disease and Critical Limb Ischemia in the United States. Emergency Department and Critical Care Use of Clevidipine for Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Acute Stroke. Impact of as Needed Heparin Boluses on Supratherapeutic Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time in Patients Managed With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1