急诊医师对潜在st段抬高型心肌梗死心电图的准确解读是否足够?

G. Veronese, F. Germini, S. Ingrassia, Ombretta Cutuli, V. Donati, L. Bonacchini, M. Marcucci, A. Fabbri
{"title":"急诊医师对潜在st段抬高型心肌梗死心电图的准确解读是否足够?","authors":"G. Veronese, F. Germini, S. Ingrassia, Ombretta Cutuli, V. Donati, L. Bonacchini, M. Marcucci, A. Fabbri","doi":"10.1080/17482941.2016.1234058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is widely performed by emergency physicians. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ECGs by emergency physicians. Methods: Thirty-six ECGs resulted in putative STEMI diagnoses were selected. Participants were asked to focus on whether or not the ECG in question met the diagnostic criteria for an acutely blocked coronary artery causing a STEMI. Based on the coronary angiogram, a binary outcome of accurate versus inaccurate ECG interpretation was defined. We computed the overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for ECG interpretation. Data on participant training level, working experience and place were collected. Results: 135 participants interpreted 4603 ECGs. Overall sensitivity to identify ‘true’ STEMI ECGs was 64.5% (95%CI: 62.8–66.3); specificity in determining ‘false’ ECGs was 78% (95%CI: 76–80.1). Overall accuracy was modest (69.1, 95%CI: 67.8–70.4). Higher accuracy in ECG interpretation was observed for attending physicians, participants working in tertiary care hospitals and those more experienced. Conclusion: The accuracy of interpretation of potential STEMI ECGs was modest among emergency physicians. The study supports the notion that ECG interpretation for establishing a STEMI diagnosis lacks the necessary sensitivity and specificity to be considered a reliable ‘stand-alone’ diagnostic test.","PeriodicalId":87385,"journal":{"name":"Acute cardiac care","volume":"18 1","pages":"10 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17482941.2016.1234058","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emergency physician accuracy in interpreting electrocardiograms with potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Is it enough?\",\"authors\":\"G. Veronese, F. Germini, S. Ingrassia, Ombretta Cutuli, V. Donati, L. Bonacchini, M. Marcucci, A. Fabbri\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17482941.2016.1234058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is widely performed by emergency physicians. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ECGs by emergency physicians. Methods: Thirty-six ECGs resulted in putative STEMI diagnoses were selected. Participants were asked to focus on whether or not the ECG in question met the diagnostic criteria for an acutely blocked coronary artery causing a STEMI. Based on the coronary angiogram, a binary outcome of accurate versus inaccurate ECG interpretation was defined. We computed the overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for ECG interpretation. Data on participant training level, working experience and place were collected. Results: 135 participants interpreted 4603 ECGs. Overall sensitivity to identify ‘true’ STEMI ECGs was 64.5% (95%CI: 62.8–66.3); specificity in determining ‘false’ ECGs was 78% (95%CI: 76–80.1). Overall accuracy was modest (69.1, 95%CI: 67.8–70.4). Higher accuracy in ECG interpretation was observed for attending physicians, participants working in tertiary care hospitals and those more experienced. Conclusion: The accuracy of interpretation of potential STEMI ECGs was modest among emergency physicians. The study supports the notion that ECG interpretation for establishing a STEMI diagnosis lacks the necessary sensitivity and specificity to be considered a reliable ‘stand-alone’ diagnostic test.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acute cardiac care\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"10 - 7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17482941.2016.1234058\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acute cardiac care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17482941.2016.1234058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute cardiac care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17482941.2016.1234058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

背景:心电图(ECG)的解读被急诊医师广泛使用。我们的目的是确定急诊医生解释潜在st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)心电图的准确性。方法:选择36例疑似STEMI诊断的心电图。参与者被要求关注所讨论的心电图是否符合急性冠状动脉阻塞导致STEMI的诊断标准。根据冠状动脉造影,定义了准确和不准确的心电图解释的二元结果。我们计算了心电图解释的总体敏感性、特异性、准确性和95%置信区间(95% ci)。收集参与者的培训水平、工作经验和工作地点等数据。结果:135名参与者解释了4603张心电图。鉴别“真实”STEMI心电图的总体敏感性为64.5% (95%CI: 62.8-66.3);判定“假”心电图的特异性为78% (95%CI: 76-80.1)。总体准确度一般(69.1,95%CI: 67.8-70.4)。观察到主治医生、三级护理医院工作的参与者和更有经验的参与者的心电图解释准确性更高。结论:急诊医师对潜在STEMI心电图的解释准确性一般。该研究支持了这样一种观点,即用于建立STEMI诊断的ECG解释缺乏必要的敏感性和特异性,不能被认为是可靠的“独立”诊断测试。
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
Emergency physician accuracy in interpreting electrocardiograms with potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Is it enough?
Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is widely performed by emergency physicians. We aimed to determine the accuracy of interpretation of potential ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ECGs by emergency physicians. Methods: Thirty-six ECGs resulted in putative STEMI diagnoses were selected. Participants were asked to focus on whether or not the ECG in question met the diagnostic criteria for an acutely blocked coronary artery causing a STEMI. Based on the coronary angiogram, a binary outcome of accurate versus inaccurate ECG interpretation was defined. We computed the overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for ECG interpretation. Data on participant training level, working experience and place were collected. Results: 135 participants interpreted 4603 ECGs. Overall sensitivity to identify ‘true’ STEMI ECGs was 64.5% (95%CI: 62.8–66.3); specificity in determining ‘false’ ECGs was 78% (95%CI: 76–80.1). Overall accuracy was modest (69.1, 95%CI: 67.8–70.4). Higher accuracy in ECG interpretation was observed for attending physicians, participants working in tertiary care hospitals and those more experienced. Conclusion: The accuracy of interpretation of potential STEMI ECGs was modest among emergency physicians. The study supports the notion that ECG interpretation for establishing a STEMI diagnosis lacks the necessary sensitivity and specificity to be considered a reliable ‘stand-alone’ diagnostic test.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A multi-hospital analysis of predictors of oral anticoagulation prescriptions for patients with actionable atrial fibrillation who attend the emergency department. Mayo registry for telemetry efficacy in arrest study: An evaluation of the feasibility of the do not intubate code status. Acute pneumopericardium: when echocardiography is not enough. Severe burns in a patient after out-of-hospital CPR. Pregnant women with heart disease: Placental characteristics and their association with fetal adverse events.
×
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