False Positive Cardiac Cath Lab Activations

Here are some highlights from Larson, Menssen, Sharkey et al “False-Positive” Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activation Among Patients With Suspected ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction, JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760.

The false positive rates (suspected STEMI patients with ST-segment elevation but no clear culprit coronary artery, no significant coronary artery disease, and negative cardiac biomarker results) were analyzed at the Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota (a tertiary cardiovascular center with referral relationships with community hospitals throughout Minnesota and western Wisconsin).

First the authors note:

“Time to reperfusion is a major determinant of outcome in patients presenting with an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association STEMI guidelines recommend that the emergency department physician make the decision regarding reperfusion therapy within 10 minutes of interpreting the initial diagnostic ECG, which may be challenging because clinical decisions are often made without a previous ECG result for comparison or time to observe evolutionary ST-segment changes or cardiac biomarker results…

Here’s the bombshell:

Of the 1335 patients who underwent angiography, 187 (14%) did not have a clear culprit coronary artery, 10 patients (0.7%) had multiple potential culprit arteries (severe 3-vessel disease and positive cardiac biomarker results), and 1138 (85.3%) had a clear culprit artery. Patients with a culprit artery were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (94%), coronary artery bypass surgery (4%), or medical management (2%). Retrospective review of the index ECG indicated that 24 atients (1.8%) did not have diagnostic ST-segment elevation but instead had ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or nonspecific ST-T changes, including 3 patients with positive biomarker results (2 with non-STEMI and 1 with a drug overdose) and 21 with negative cardiac biomarker results. These patients were included in the no-culprit artery group. The prevalence of false-positive catheterization laboratory activation with the no-culprit coronary artery criteria was 14%…

The authors then pose a difficult question:

“Achieving door-to-balloon times in less than 90 minutes is an important quality metric that is tied to pay for performance and has been the focus of recent quality improvement initiatives such as the American College of Cardiology’s D2B Alliance and the American Heart Association’s Mission: Lifeline. Upstream activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory by the emergency department physician is one of the key strategies to reducing door-to balloon times. A major challenge for the emergency department physician is the patient who presents with nonspecific symptoms or subtle ST-segment elevation or QRS repolarization abnormalities that obscure or mimic ST segment elevation. In these cases, is it best to immediately activate the catheterization laboratory, considering the consequences of a false alarm, or take the time to obtain additional data, such as from serial ECGs, biomarkers, or an echocardiogram?

One final note that I found interesting:

“Patients with new or presumably new left bundle-branch block had an inordinately high prevalence of false positive catheterization laboratory activation (almost half did not have a culprit artery). Patients with a previous myocardial infarction or previous coronary bypass surgery had a significantly higher prevalence of no culprit artery, likely because of abnormal baseline ECG results.”

It would be interesting to know whether or not the false positive LBBB patients met Sgarbossa’s criteria. The authors don’t say it, but I can’t help but wonder if the patients with previous MI “and abnormal baseline ECG results” had persistent ST segment elevation similar to (what we think of as) left ventricular aneurysm.

See also:

The problem of ST segment elevation

False positive cardiac cath lab activations – PowerPoint

1 Comment

  • Sonnet says:

    I remembered I was a specialist in a duty. When I activated the cath lab team just before infroming my consultant. Thanks God, It was true positive. Otherwise,…

1 Trackback

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

EMS 12-Lead

Cardiac Rhythm Analysis, 12-Lead ECG Interpretation, Resuscitation

JEMS Talk: Google Hangout

Comments
UK Student Para
68 y.o. male with weakness: “Treat the monitor, not the patient?”
Am I really the only one considering CVA in my diffential diagnosis? Hx of AF puts the Pt at increased risk of a clot and Warfarin puts him at increased risk of a bleed. Where I come from we do not have a computerized rhythm interpretation on our ECG which I really like because it…
2014-10-01 07:36:14
Anonymous
Conclusion: Rate Related VS Primary ST-T Changes
I am wondering why all these cardiac patients in the discussions still receive oxygen so frequently? My guidelines state only administer if <94% to achieve 94% or above unless they have COPD. My understanding is this guideline is based upon evidence of high flow 02 causing coronary vasoconstriction therefore increasing ischemia. So what's the deal,…
2014-10-01 02:57:40
Anthony Garlick
68 y.o. male with weakness: “Treat the monitor, not the patient?”
So my working clinical impression would be hypoglycaemia with possibly dehydration and an electrolyte imbalance. Reasoning for this is that the patient frusemide and metolazone are both diuretics are known to cause these problems. ECG does have a wide and bazar QRS complex with ? ? AV disassociation plus what looks to be peaked T…
2014-09-30 22:22:35
Rate Related VS. Primary ST-T Changes: | EMS 12 Lead
Conclusion: Rate Related VS Primary ST-T Changes
[…] Conclusion:   http://www.ems12lead.com/2014/09/29/conclusion-rate-related-vs-primary-st-t-changes/ […]
2014-09-29 16:55:01
Conclusion: Rate Related VS Primary ST-T Changes | EMS 12 Lead
Understanding Digoxin
[…] For furhter on Digoxin, click on the link:  Understanding Digoxin […]
2014-09-29 16:42:59

STEMI Expert?

  • Click here to find out!
  • 12-Lead ECG Challenge Smartphone App

    Photobucket

    12-Lead ECG Challenge Smartphone App - $5.99

  • Apple iOS
  • Android
  • Amazon
  • Web Based

  • FRN-TV video review
  • iMedicalApps.com review
  • Interested in resuscitation?

    FireEMS Blogs eNewsletter

    Sign-up to receive our free monthly eNewsletter

    Visitor Map / Stats

    Locations of visitors to this page


    LATEST EMS NEWS

    HOT FORUM DISCUSSIONS