Diagnosing acute myocardial infarction in the setting of left bundle branch block: Prevalence and observer variability from a large community study

Coronary Artery Disease

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 387-393

  Gula, Lorne J ^a   Dick, Alexander ^a   Massel, David ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Acute myocardial infarction; Bundle branch block; Electrocardiography; Thrombolysis

Indexed keywords

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ARTICLE; BLOOD CLOT LYSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMMUNITY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH ROUTE; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; HEART LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; ST SEGMENT DEPRESSION; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION;

EID: 0042739077     PISSN: 09546928     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mca.0000085135.16622.e8     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Canto JG, Taylor HA, Rogers WJ, Sanderson B, Hilbe J, Barron HV. Presenting characteristics, treatment pattens, and clinical outcomes of non-black minorities in the national registry of myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82:1013-1018.
2. Friesinger GC, Smith RF. Old age, left bundle branch block and acute myocardial infarction: a vexing and lethal combination. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:713-716.
3. Brilakis ES, Wright RS, Kopecky SL, Reeder GS, Williams BA, Miller WL. Bundle branch block as a predictor of long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88:205-209.
4. Miller WL, Sgura FA, Kopecky SL, Asirvatham SJ, Williams BA, Wright RS, et al. Characteristics of presenting electrocardiograms of acute myocardial infarction from a community-based population predict short- and long-term mortality. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87:1045-1050.
5. Kontos MC, McQueen RH, Jesse RL, Tatum JL, Ornato JP. Can myocardial infarction be rapidly identified in emergency department patients who have left bundle-branch block? Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37:431-438.
6. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in susptected myocardial infarction. Lancet 1994; 343:311-322.
7. Barron HV, Bowlby LJ, Breen T, Rogers WJ, Canto JG, Zhang Y, et al. Use of reperfusion treatment for acute myocardial infarction in the United States: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Circulation 1998; 97:1150-1156.
8. Berger AK, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Factors associated with delay in reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: analysis of the cooperative cardiovascular project. Am Heart J 2000; 139:985-992.
9. Shlipak MG, Go AS, Frederick PD, Malmgren J, Barton HV, Canto JG. Treatment and outcomes of left bundle-branch block patients with myocardial infarction who present without chest pain. National registry of myocardial infarction 2 investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:706-712.
10. Sgarbossa EB, Pinski SL, Barbagelata A, Underwood DA, Gates KB, Topol EJ, et al. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of evolving acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:481-487.
11. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Clinical disagreement: I. How often it occurs and why. Can Med Assoc J 1980; 123:499-504.
12. Acheson RM. Observer error and variation in the interpretation of electrocardiograms in an epidemiological study of coronary heart disease. Br J Prev Soc Med 1960; 14:99-122.
13. Fischmann E, Cosma J, Pipberger HV. Beat to beat and observer variation of the electrocardiogram. Am Heart J 1968; 75:465-473.
14. Weston MJ, Bett JHN, Over R. Consensus opinion and observer accuracy in electrocardiography with reference to coronary arteriographic information. Aust NZ J Med 1976; 8:429-432.
15. Tandberg D, Kastendieck KD, Meskin S. Observer variation in measured ST-segment elevation. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 34:448-452.
16. Li SF, Walden PL, Marcilla O, Gallagher EJ. Electrocadiographic diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients with left bundle branch brock. Ann Emerg Med 2000; 36:561-565.
17. Sokolove PE, Sgarbossa EB, Amsterdam EA, et al. Interobserver agreement in the electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients with left bundle branch block. Ann Emerg Med 2000; 36:566-571.
18. Massel D, Basinski A, Meladie M, Flintoft V, Waien S, Naylor CD. OPTAMI: a randomized trial to optimize pharmacological therapy in acute MI in 20 community hospitals. Can J Cardiol 1996; 12:168E.
19. Canadian Consensus Conference on Coronary Thrombolysis. 1994 Recommendations. Can J Cardiol 1994; 10:522-529.
20. Willems JL, de Medina EOR, Bernard R, et al. Criteria for intraventricular conduction disturbances and pre-excitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985; 5:1261-1275.
21. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Ed Psychol Meas 1960; 20:37-46.
22. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1981.
23. Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. Lancet 1992; 304:1491-1494.
24. Cochrane WG. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 1950; 37:256-266.
25. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43:543-549.
26. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43:551-558.
27. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, et al. Users' guide to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1994; 271:389-391.
28. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, et al. Users' guide to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 1994; 271:703-707.
29. Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934; 26:404-413.
30. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than 'exact' for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Statistician 1998; 52:119-126.
31. Massel D, Dawdy J. Intra- and interobserver variability and accuracy of ECG interpretation in suspected AMI: possible impact on use of thrombolysis. Can J Cardiol 1996; 12:150E.
32. Shlipak MG, Lyons WL, Go AS, et al. Should the electrocardiogram be used to guide therapy for patients with left bundle-branch block and suspected myocardial infarction? JAMA 1999; 281:714-719.
33. The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:673-682.
34. Gallagher EJ. Which patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and left bundle-branch block should receive thrombolytic agents? Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37:439-444.
35. Sgarbossa EB. Value of the ECG in suspected acute myocardial infarction with left bundle branch block. J Electrocardiol 2000; 33(suppl.):87-92.
36. Gula LJ, Massel D. Can myocardial infarction be rapidly identified in emergency department patients who have left bundle-branch block? [commentary]. Ann Intern Med (in press).
37. Ottesen MM, Kober L, Jorgensen S, et al. Consequences of overutilization and underutilization of thrombolytic therapy in clinical practice. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37:1581-1587.