title: Comparison of continuous ST-segment recovery analysis with methods using static electrocardiograms for noninvasive patency assessment during acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (TAMI) 7 Study Group.
abstract: Continuous ST-segment recovery analysis and 5 static methods using ST-segment comparison between a pre- and post-treatment electrocardiogram were compared for their ability to predict infarct-related artery patency in 82 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent angiography a median of 124 minutes after onset of thrombolytic treatment. Accuracy at the moment of angiography was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77% to 93%) for the continuous method, and 68% (CI 57% to 78%), 78% (CI 69% to 87%), 83% (CI 74% to 91%), 82% (CI 73% to 90%), and 80% (CI 71% to 89%) for the static methods. At the moment of angiography the most accurate static method and the continuous method agreed in patency assessment in 90% of the patients (CI 84% to 97%). Agreement was reduced to 83% (CI 75% to 91%) of patients when a patency assessment was performed earlier at 90 minutes after treatment onset, and was only 77% (CI 68% to 86%), at 60 minutes. Early disagreement was mainly seen when the continuous ST recording showed ST recovery from a delayed peak ST elevation after the pretreatment static electrocardiogram or when dynamic ST changes suggesting cyclic reperfusion occurred. Continuous ST-segment recovery analysis appears to be as accurate as the most accurate static methods. Continuously updated reference points appear to give important additional information when ST recovery follows a delayed peak ST elevation or when re-elevation occurs, suggesting cyclic flow changes. Such findings appear to affect about half of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with intravenous thrombolysis, particularly early after administration of therapy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710.
authors.forename: R F
authors.initials: RF
authors.lastname: Veldkamp
authors.forename: C L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Green
authors.forename: M L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Wilkins
authors.forename: J E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Pope
authors.forename: S T
authors.initials: ST
authors.lastname: Sawchak
authors.forename: J A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Ryan
authors.forename: R M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Califf
authors.forename: G S
authors.initials: GS
authors.lastname: Wagner
authors.forename: M W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Krucoff
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D004562:Electrocardiography / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008991:Monitoring, Physiologic; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000503:physiopathology*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D015912:Thrombolytic Therapy; D014654:Vascular Patency / Q000187:drug effects