Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T10:44:25.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Physician Interpretation of Prehospital, Paramedic-Acquired Electrocardiograms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Jeffrey A. Schaffer ,
Terence D. Valenzuela ,
Arthur L. Wright ,
Lani Clark ,
Riemke M. Brakema ,
Steven Goldman  and
Daniel W. Spaite
Jeffrey A. Schaffer
Affiliation:
The Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Tucson, Ariz.
Terence D. Valenzuela*
Affiliation:
The Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Tucson, Ariz.
Arthur L. Wright
Affiliation:
University of Arizona College of Medicine, Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
Lani Clark
Affiliation:
The Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Tucson, Ariz.
Riemke M. Brakema
Affiliation:
The Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Tucson, Ariz.
Steven Goldman
Affiliation:
Section of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Tucson, Ariz.
Daniel W. Spaite
Affiliation:
The Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Tucson, Ariz.
*
Emergency Medicine, Arizona Health Sciences Center, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypothesis:

Emergency physician interpretation of prehospital, paramedic-acquired, electrocardiograms (ECG) is accurate judged by comparison with that of a reference cardiologist.

Methods:

Twelve-lead ECGs were obtained by paramedics in the field from 150 patients with acute chest pain. The ECGs were transmitted by cellular telephone to a central location. Each ECG was assessed for evidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by: 1) a third-year, emergency medicine resident (EMP-R); 2) a residency-trained, board-certified, emergency physician (EMP-RT); 3) an emergency physician board certified under the practice option (EMP-PT); and 4) a board-certified cardiologist. Agreement between each emergency physician and the cardiologist was assessed by the kappa statistic. Hospital records were reviewed for final diagnosis of each patient.

Results:

Sixteen of 150 (10.7%) patients received a hospital discharge diagnosis of AMI. Sensitivity of physician interpretation ranged from 0.31 to 0.56. All physicians achieved specificity of 0.99. False-positive rates for the physicians ranged from 0.18–0.29. The mean positive predictive value for the four physicians was 0.77±0.05; the mean negative predictive value was 0.94±0.01. The total agreements between the EMP-R, EMP-RT, and EMP-PT and the cardiologists were 0.97, 0.96, and 0.97, respectively. Kappa values for agreement between the emergency physicians and the cardiologist ranged from 0.65–0.79.

Conclusions:

Residency-trained or board-certified emergency physician interpretations of prehospital, paramedic-acquired 12-lead ECGs show a high degree of agreement with reference cardiologist interpretations.

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 251 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Grupo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptchinasi nell ‘Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI): Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986;1:397–402.Google Scholar
2. AIMS Trial Study Group: Effect of intravenous APSAC on mortality after acute myocardial infarction: Preliminary report of a placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet 1988;1:545–549.Google Scholar
3. ISIS-2 Collaborative Group: Randomized trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988;2:349–360.Google Scholar
4. Wilcox, RG, Olsson, CG, Skene, AM, et al. for the ASSET Study Group: Trial of tissue plasminogen activator for mortality reduction in acute myocardial infarction. Anglo-Scandinavian Study of Early Thrombolysis (ASSET). Lancet 1988;2:525–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Graves, EJ: National Hospital Discharge Survey: Annual Summary, 1987. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 1987;13(99).Google Scholar
6. Hlatky, MA, Cotugno, H, O'Conner, C, et al. : Adoption of thrombolytic therapy in the management of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1988;61:510–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. American College of Cardiology/America Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures: Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1990;82:664–707.Google Scholar
8. Grim, P, Feldman, T, Martin, M, et al. : Cellular telephone transmission of 12-Lead electrocardiograms from ambulance to hospital. Am J Cardiol 1987;60:715–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Dawson-Saunders, B, Trapp, RG: Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. Norwalk, Ct.: Appleton & Lange, 1990, pp 231–240.Google Scholar
10. Zar, J: Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
11. Sherrid, M, Greenberg, H, Marsella, R, et al. : A pilot study of paramedic-administered, prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 1990;13:421–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Weiss, AT, Fine, DG, Applebaum, D, et al. : Prehospital coronary thrombolysis: A new strategy in acute myocardial infarction. Chest 1987;92:124–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Kereiakes, DJ, Weaver, D, Anderson, JL, et al. : Time delays in the diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction: A tale eight cities. Report from the Pre-hospital Study Group and the Cincinnati Heart Project. Am Heart J 1986;120:773–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Sharkey, SW, Brunette, DD, Ruiz, E, et al. : An analysis of time delays preceding thrombolysis for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1989;262:3171–3174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Weaver, WD, Eisenberg, MS, Martin, JS, et al. : Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project-Phase I: Patient characteristics and feasibility of prehospital initiation of thrombolytic therapy. JACC 1990;15:925–931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Zappa, MJ, Smith, M, Li, S: How well do emergency physicians interpret ECGs? Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:463.Google Scholar
17. Rude, RE, Poole, WK, Muller, JE, Turi, Z: Electrocardiographic and clinical criteria for recognition of acute myocardial infarction based on analysis of 3,697 patients. Am J Cardiol 1983;52: 936–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar