Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T10:52:13.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paramedic Interpretation of Prehospital Lead-II ST-Segments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Robert Hill ,
Michael Heller ,
Alexander Rosenau ,
Scott Melanson ,
David Pronchik ,
John Patterson  and
H. Gulick
Robert Hill
Affiliation:
St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Michael Heller*
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Residency of the Lehigh Valley, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
Alexander Rosenau
Affiliation:
Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA
Scott Melanson
Affiliation:
St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
David Pronchik
Affiliation:
St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
John Patterson
Affiliation:
St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
H. Gulick
Affiliation:
Allentown EMS, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA
*
Emergency Medicine Residency, 801 Ostrum Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the reliability of ST-segment interpretation by paramedics from lead-II rhythm strips obtained in the prehospital setting.

Design:

Prospective, blinded study of 127 patients transported by an urban/rural emergency medical services system with complaints consistent with ischemic heart disease.

Methods:

Emergency department physicians asked emergency medical technician-paramedics (EMT-P) via radio to evaluate ST-segments for elevation or depression and grade it as “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe.” Then, this rhythm strip was interpreted blindly by emergency physicians who also interpreted the lead-II obtained from a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) obtained in the emergency department (ED). The field interpretation was compared with the subsequent readings and the final in-patient diagnosis using positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the Kappa statistic. Markedly discrepant interpretations were analyzed separately.

Results:

Using physician interpretation as the reference standard, paramedic interpretation of the lead-II ST-segments obtained in the prehospital setting was correct (within ±1 gradation) in 113 out of 127 total cases (89%). Of 105 patients for whom final hospital diagnosis was available, the ST-segment on the rhythm strip obtained in the prehospital setting, had a positive predictive value of 74% and a negative predictive value of 85% for myocardial ischemia or myocardial infarction (MI) (p <0.001, Kappa = 0.59). Discordant interpretations between the paramedics and emergency physicians often were related to a basic misunderstanding of rhythm strip morphology.

Conclusion:

Field interpretation of ST-segments by paramedics is fairly accurate as judged both by emergency physicians and correlation with final patient outcome, but its clinical utility is unproved. A small but clinically significant number of outliers, consisting of markedly discrepant false positives, reflects paramedic uncertainty in identifying the deviations of the ST-segment.

Keywords

electrocariogramlead-IImyocardial ischemiaparamedicsprehospital ECGrhythm stripST-segments
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 70 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1997

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. Gibler, WB, Aufderheide, T: Emergency Cardiac Care; Mosby-Yearbook Inc.; 1994: p 147.Google Scholar
2. Hargarten, KM, Aprahamian, C, Stueven, H et al. : Limitations of acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:1325–1329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Scarlovsky, S, Davidson, E, Lewin, R et al. : Acute myocardial infarction: Significance of ECG changes during chest pain. Amer Heart J 1986;112:459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Pozen, MV, Fried, DD, Vbignt, G et al. : Studies of ambulance patients with ischemic heart disease. Amer J Public Health 1977;67:532–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. McGuiness, JB, Begg, TB, Semple, T: First electrocardiogram in recent myocardiac infarction. BMJ 1976;2(6033):449–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Karagounis, L, Ipsen, SK, Jessop, MR: Impact of field-transmitted electrocardiograph on time to in-hospital thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Am Emergh Med 1990;60:786–791.Google Scholar
7. Jacobs, , Luise, JA, Eisenscher, J: Congruency in physician-EMT assessment. Ann Emerg Med 1981;10:201–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Krucoff, M, Green, C, Satler, L et al. : Noninvasive detection of coronary, artery patency using continuous ST-segment monitoring. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:910–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Hog, K, Hornung, R, Howie, C et al. : Electrocardiographic prediction of coronary artery patency after thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: Use of the ST-segment as a non-invasive marker. BMJ 1988;60:275–280.Google Scholar
10. Gibler, W, Runyon, J, Levy, R et al. : A rapid diagnostic and treatment center for patients with chest pain in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Fasmire, F, Smith, E: Continuous 12-lead electrocardiograph monitoring in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 1993;11:54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Jakobsson, J, Nyquist, O, Rehnquist, N et al. : Concise education of ambulance personnel in ECG interpretation and out of hospital defibrillation. Eur Heart J 1987;8:229–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Aufderheide, T, Herdley, G, Woo, J et al. : A prospective evaluation of prehospital 12-lead ECG application in chest patient patients. J Electrocardiol 1991;24:8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar