心电图机解读是否影响急诊医师准确诊断st段抬高型心肌梗死的能力?

Yenisleidy Paez Perez, Sarah Rimm, Joseph Bove, Steven Hochman, Tianci Liu, Anthony Catapano, Ninad Shroff, Jessica Lim, Brian Rimm
{"title":"心电图机解读是否影响急诊医师准确诊断st段抬高型心肌梗死的能力?","authors":"Yenisleidy Paez Perez,&nbsp;Sarah Rimm,&nbsp;Joseph Bove,&nbsp;Steven Hochman,&nbsp;Tianci Liu,&nbsp;Anthony Catapano,&nbsp;Ninad Shroff,&nbsp;Jessica Lim,&nbsp;Brian Rimm","doi":"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>An ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can portend significant morbidity and mortality to the patient and therefore must be rapidly diagnosed by an emergency medicine (EM) physician. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether EM physicians are more or less likely to accurately diagnose STEMI on an electrocardiogram (ECG) if they are blinded to the ECG machine interpretation as opposed to if they are provided the ECG machine interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients over 18 years of age admitted to our large, urban tertiary care center with a diagnosis of STEMI from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. From these patients' charts, we selected 31 ECGs to create a quiz that was presented twice to a group of emergency physicians. The first quiz contained the 31 ECGs without the computer interpretations revealed. The second quiz, presented to the same physicians 2 weeks later, contained the same set of ECGs with the computer interpretations revealed. Physicians were asked \"Based on the ECG above, is there a blocked coronary artery present causing a STEMI?\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five EM physicians completed two 31-question ECG quizzes for a total of 1550 ECG interpretations. On the first quiz with computer interpretations blinded, the overall sensitivity in identifying a \"true STEMI\" was 67.2% with an overall accuracy of 65.6%. On the second quiz in which the ECG machine interpretation was revealed, the overall sensitivity was 66.4% with an accuracy of 65.8 % in correctly identifying a STEMI. The differences in sensitivity and accuracy were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated no significant difference in physicians blinded versus those unblinded to computer interpretations of possible STEMI.</p>","PeriodicalId":35914,"journal":{"name":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the Electrocardiogram Machine Interpretation Affect the Ability to Accurately Diagnose ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction by Emergency Physicians?\",\"authors\":\"Yenisleidy Paez Perez,&nbsp;Sarah Rimm,&nbsp;Joseph Bove,&nbsp;Steven Hochman,&nbsp;Tianci Liu,&nbsp;Anthony Catapano,&nbsp;Ninad Shroff,&nbsp;Jessica Lim,&nbsp;Brian Rimm\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>An ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can portend significant morbidity and mortality to the patient and therefore must be rapidly diagnosed by an emergency medicine (EM) physician. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether EM physicians are more or less likely to accurately diagnose STEMI on an electrocardiogram (ECG) if they are blinded to the ECG machine interpretation as opposed to if they are provided the ECG machine interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients over 18 years of age admitted to our large, urban tertiary care center with a diagnosis of STEMI from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. From these patients' charts, we selected 31 ECGs to create a quiz that was presented twice to a group of emergency physicians. The first quiz contained the 31 ECGs without the computer interpretations revealed. The second quiz, presented to the same physicians 2 weeks later, contained the same set of ECGs with the computer interpretations revealed. Physicians were asked \\\"Based on the ECG above, is there a blocked coronary artery present causing a STEMI?\\\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five EM physicians completed two 31-question ECG quizzes for a total of 1550 ECG interpretations. On the first quiz with computer interpretations blinded, the overall sensitivity in identifying a \\\"true STEMI\\\" was 67.2% with an overall accuracy of 65.6%. On the second quiz in which the ECG machine interpretation was revealed, the overall sensitivity was 66.4% with an accuracy of 65.8 % in correctly identifying a STEMI. The differences in sensitivity and accuracy were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated no significant difference in physicians blinded versus those unblinded to computer interpretations of possible STEMI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Pathways in Cardiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"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.0000000000000310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000310","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

摘要

st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)可能预示着患者显著的发病率和死亡率,因此必须由急诊医学(EM)医师迅速诊断。本研究的主要目的是确定急诊医生是否更有可能准确地诊断STEMI在心电图(ECG)上,如果他们不知道心电图机器解释,而不是如果他们提供心电图机器解释。方法:我们对2016年1月1日至2017年12月31日在我们的大型城市三级医疗中心诊断为STEMI的18岁以上成年患者进行回顾性图表回顾。从这些患者的图表中,我们选择了31个心电图来创建一个测验,向一组急诊医生展示了两次。第一个测试包含31个心电图,但没有计算机解释。第二次测试在两周后提交给同一位医生,包含了同样的一组心电图,并显示了计算机的解释。医生被问到:“根据上述心电图,是否存在导致STEMI的冠状动脉阻塞?”结果:25名急诊医生完成了两个31题的心电图测验,共计1550次心电图解释。在第一次用计算机盲解释的测试中,识别“真正的STEMI”的总体敏感性为67.2%,总体准确性为65.6%。在第二次测试中,心电图机解释显示,在正确识别STEMI方面,总体敏感性为66.4%,准确率为65.8%。敏感性和准确性差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究表明,在计算机对可能的STEMI的解释上,盲法医师与非盲法医师没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Does the Electrocardiogram Machine Interpretation Affect the Ability to Accurately Diagnose ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction by Emergency Physicians?

Introduction: An ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can portend significant morbidity and mortality to the patient and therefore must be rapidly diagnosed by an emergency medicine (EM) physician. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether EM physicians are more or less likely to accurately diagnose STEMI on an electrocardiogram (ECG) if they are blinded to the ECG machine interpretation as opposed to if they are provided the ECG machine interpretation.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients over 18 years of age admitted to our large, urban tertiary care center with a diagnosis of STEMI from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. From these patients' charts, we selected 31 ECGs to create a quiz that was presented twice to a group of emergency physicians. The first quiz contained the 31 ECGs without the computer interpretations revealed. The second quiz, presented to the same physicians 2 weeks later, contained the same set of ECGs with the computer interpretations revealed. Physicians were asked "Based on the ECG above, is there a blocked coronary artery present causing a STEMI?"

Results: Twenty-five EM physicians completed two 31-question ECG quizzes for a total of 1550 ECG interpretations. On the first quiz with computer interpretations blinded, the overall sensitivity in identifying a "true STEMI" was 67.2% with an overall accuracy of 65.6%. On the second quiz in which the ECG machine interpretation was revealed, the overall sensitivity was 66.4% with an accuracy of 65.8 % in correctly identifying a STEMI. The differences in sensitivity and accuracy were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated no significant difference in physicians blinded versus those unblinded to computer interpretations of possible STEMI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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