Emergent cardiac outcomes in patients with normal electrocardiograms in the emergency department

Obstructive myocardial infarction with normal automated ECG interpretation: A case report

Emergency Medicine physicians experience a significant number of interruptions throughout their work day. One common cause of interruptions is the immediate interpretation of triage electrocardiograms (ECGs). Recent studies have suggested that ECGs interpreted as normal via automated analysis by the ECG machine rarely require urgent cardiac intervention and suggested that providers may not have to be interrupted to interpret these "normal" ECGs. We describe the case of a patient who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with chest pain and an ECG interpreted as normal by an automated reading from the ECG machine, despite having acute coronary syndrome requiring emergent intervention.

Compared with physician overread, computer is less accurate but helpful in interpretation of electrocardiography for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have demonstrated varying sensitivity and specificity of computer-interpreted electrocardiography (CIE) in identifying ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of contemporary computer software in recognizing electrocardiography (ECG) signs characteristic of STEMI compared to emergency physician overread in clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective observational single-center study, we reviewed the records of patients in the emergency department (ED) who underwent ECGs and troponin tests. Both the Philips DXL 16-Lead ECG. Algorithm and on-duty emergency physicians interpreted each standard 12‑lead ECG. The sensitivity and specificity of computer interpretation and physician overread ECGs for the definite diagnosis of STEMI were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

Among the 9340 patients included in the final analysis, 133 were definitively diagnosed with STEMI. When "computer-reported infarct or injury" was used as the indicator, the sensitivity was 87.2% (95% CI 80.3% to 92.4%) and the specificity was 86.2% (95% CI 85.5% to 86.9%). When "physician-overread STEMI" was used as the indicator, the sensitivity was 88.0% (95% CI 81.2% to 93.0%) and the specificity was 99.9% (95% CI 99.8% to 99.9%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for physician-overread STEMI and computer-reported infarct or injury were 0.939 (95% CI 0.907 to 0.972) and 0.867 (95% CI 0.834 to 0.900), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that while the sensitivity of the computer in recognizing ECG signs of STEMI is similar to that of physicians, physician overread of ECGs is more specific and, therefore, more accurate than CIE.