Publication: Physician Accuracy in Interpreting Potential ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Electrocardiograms
Open/View Files
Date
2013
Published Version
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.
Citation
McCabe, J. M., E. J. Armstrong, I. Ku, A. Kulkarni, K. S. Hoffmayer, P. D. Bhave, S. W. Waldo, et al. 2013. “Physician Accuracy in Interpreting Potential ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Electrocardiograms.” Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease 2 (5): e000268. doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.000268.
Research Data
Abstract
Background: With adoption of telemedicine, physicians are increasingly asked to diagnose ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) based on electrocardiograms (ECGs) with minimal associated clinical information. We sought to determine physicians' diagnostic agreement and accuracy when interpreting potential STEMI ECGs. Methods and Results: A cross‐sectional survey was performed consisting of 36 deidentified ECGs that had previously resulted in putative STEMI diagnoses. Emergency physicians, cardiologists, and interventional cardiologists participated in the survey. For each ECG, physicians were asked, “based on the ECG above, is there a blocked coronary artery present causing a STEMI?” The reference standard for ascertaining the STEMI diagnosis was subsequent emergent coronary arteriography. Responses were analyzed with generalized estimating equations to account for nested and repeated measures. One hundred twenty‐four physicians interpreted a total of 4392 ECGs. Among all physicians, interreader agreement (kappa) for ECG interpretation was 0.33, reflecting poor agreement. The sensitivity to identify “true” STEMIs was 65% (95% CI: 63 to 67) and the specificity was 79% (95% CI: 77 to 81). There was a 6% increase in the odds of accurate ECG interpretation for every 5 years of experience since medical school graduation (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.10, P=0.01). After adjusting for experience, there was no significant difference in the odds of accurate interpretation by specialty—Emergency Medicine (reference), General Cardiology (AOR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.2, P=0.80), or Interventional Cardiology physicians (AOR 1.24, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.7, P=0.15). Conclusions: There is significant physician disagreement in interpreting ECGs with features concerning for STEMI. Such ECGs lack the necessary sensitivity and specificity to act as a suitable “stand‐alone” diagnostic test.
Description
Other Available Sources
Keywords
Health Services and Outcomes Research, electrocardiogram, myocardial infarction, quality, telemedicine
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service