1 / 16

Electrocardiogram interpretation in general practice

Electrocardiogram interpretation in general practice. background. Common diagnostic test in GP (cardiac complaints) Difficulties of interpreting ECG: GP and residents > cardiologists More correct interpretation of ECG achieved by using interpretative ECG recorders. Objectives.

wilma-hansen
Download Presentation

Electrocardiogram interpretation in general practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Electrocardiogram interpretation in general practice

  2. background • Common diagnostic test in GP (cardiac complaints) • Difficulties of interpreting ECG: GP and residents > cardiologists • More correct interpretation of ECG achieved by using interpretative ECG recorders

  3. Objectives • To know the sensitivity and the specificity of ECG interpretation by both GPs and interpretative recorders.

  4. Methods • Setting: Ebeltoft, Denmark • Population: 902 ECGs (randomised aged 31-51 population) • Cross-sectional study • Gold standard: cardiologist ‘s interpretation • GPs not blinded to: • Results of interpretive ECG recorder • History and other clinical data • Cardiologist not blinded to: • Results of interpretive ECG recorder

  5. Methods • 10 % of random sample of ECG viewed by an other cardiologist, • Statistic tool: SPSS, • McNemar’s test: sensitivity and specificity of diagnoses made by both GPs and ECG recorders, • Kappa: interobserver agreement on the diagnoses made by two cardiologists.

  6. Results • 902 of 905 ECGs • 429 men (47.6%), 473 women (52.4%) • Median age: 41 years (men and women) • Kappa = 0.856 (95% CI: 0.742-0.970)

  7. Results abnormal ECG

  8. Results abnormal ECG • If the sensitivity = 69.8%

  9. Results abnormal ECG

  10. Results abnormal ECG

  11. Results ischaemia or myocardial infarction

  12. Results any bundle branch • Sensitivity and specificity: no significant difference

  13. Conclusions • Higher sensitivity with ECG recorder than with GPs  false-negative low for recoder  stay very low in general  the GP have to attempt to achieve a better sensitivity (abnormal ECG reading by the recorder to a specialist, a training,…) • Higher specificity with GPs than with ECG recorder

  14. Conclusions • PPV: low • PNV: high • Low prevalence of abnormal ECG in this population

  15. Positive point • GPs never knew that their ECG interpretation skills will be evaluated  real skills of the GPs

  16. Negative points • Not blinding of the GPs • Not blinding of the cardiologist • The same training in Belgium and in Denmark? • One ECG recorder; and the other ones?

More Related