title: Diagnosis of acute cardiac ischemia.
abstract: A better understanding of coronary syndromes allow physicians to appreciate UAP and AMI as part of a continuum of ACI. ACI is a life-threatening condition whose identification can have major economic and therapeutic importance as far as threatening dysrhythmias and preventing or limiting myocardial infarction size. The identification of ACI continues to challenge the skill of even experienced clinicians, yet physicians continue (appropriately) to admit the overwhelming majority of patients with ACI; in the process, they admit many patients without acute ischemia [2], overestimating the likelihood of ischemia in low-risk patients because of magnified concern for this diagnosis for prognostic and therapeutic reasons. Studies of admitting practices from a decade ago have yielded useful clinical information but have shown that neither clinical symptoms nor the ECG could reliably distinguish most patients with ACI from those with other conditions. Most studies have evaluated the accuracy of various technologies for diagnosing ACI, yet only a few have evaluated the clinical impact of routine use. The prehospital 12-lead ECG has moderate sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of ACI. It has demonstrated a reduction of the mean time to thrombolysis by 33 minutes and short-term overall mortality in randomized trials. In the general ED setting, only the ACI-TIPI has demonstrated, in a large-scale multicenter clinical trial, a reduction in unnecessary hospitalizations without decreasing the rate of appropriate admission for patients with ACI. The Goldman chest pain protocol has good sensitivity for AMI but was not shown to result in any differences in hospitalization rate, length of stay, or estimated costs in the single clinical impact study performed. The protocol's applicability to patients with UAP has not been evaluated. Single measurement of biomarkers at presentation to the ED has poor sensitivity for AMI, although most biomarkers have high specificity. Serial measurements can greatly increase the sensitivity for AMI while maintaining their excellent specificity. Biomarkers cannot identify most patients with UAP. Finally, diagnostic technologies to evaluate ACI in selected populations, such as echocardiography, sestamibi perfusion imaging, and stress ECG, may have very good to excellent sensitivity; however, they have not been sufficiently studied.
authors.affiliation: New England Medical Center, 750 Washington Street 163, Boston, MA, 02111, USA. jameshpope@aol.com
authors.forename: J Hector
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Pope
authors.forename: Harry P
authors.initials: HP
authors.lastname: Selker
mesh_terms: D000789:Angina, Unstable / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology; D015415:Biomarkers / Q000032:analysis; D002637:Chest Pain / Q000175:diagnosis; D004562:Electrocardiography / Q000379:methods; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology; D017202:Myocardial Ischemia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000379:methods; D014218:Triage / Q000379:methods; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology
chemical_list: D015415:Biomarkers