1 / 19

False Positive ST Elevation in Patients Undergoing Direct Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

False Positive ST Elevation in Patients Undergoing Direct Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. David M. Larson MD, Katie M. Menssen, BS,, Scott W Sharkey MD, James Harris MD, Jeffrey T. Meland, MD Robert Schwartz MD, Barbara T Unger RN, Timothy D. Henry MD,

zabrina
Download Presentation

False Positive ST Elevation in Patients Undergoing Direct Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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. False Positive ST Elevation in Patients Undergoing Direct Percutaneous Coronary Intervention David M. Larson MD, Katie M. Menssen, BS,, Scott W Sharkey MD, James Harris MD, Jeffrey T. Meland, MD Robert Schwartz MD, Barbara T Unger RN, Timothy D. Henry MD, Ridgeview Medical Center, Waconia, Minnesota and Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota

  2. Introduction • Previous data shows that up to 11% of STEMI patients treated with thrombolysis did not have a Myocardial Infarction (MI) • ACC/AHA guidelines recommend that the Emergency physician make the decision regarding reperfusion therapy for STEMI • There is limited data reporting the rate of “false positive” ECGs in STEMI patients treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

  3. Objective • To determine the incidence and etiologies of “false positive” ECGs, defined as: no culprit coronary vessel and negative cardiac markers (no MI), from a non-selected cohort of STEMI patients. • To determine the incidence of “true false positive” ECGs defined as no culprit, no significant coronary disease and negative cardiac markers.

  4. Methods • Minneapolis Heart Institute/Abbott Northwestern Hospital (ANW) – a tertiary cardiac center with referral relationships with 30 community hospitals (CH) in Minnesota and Wisconsin – instituted the “MHI Level 1 MI Program” in 2003.

  5. Methods • Level 1 MI Protocol: Includes STEMI (ST elevation or new Left Bundle Branch Block) with symptom < 24hrs. Diagnosis and decision to activate the cath lab is made by the Emergency Physician at the presenting hospital. Transferred patients go directly to cath lab for Primary or Facilitated PCI • Data obtained from a prospective registry of all “Level 1 MI” patients that includes clinical, laboratory, ECG, angiographic and follow up data.

  6. What is the prevalence and etiology of “False Positive” Cath Lab Activation? STEMI Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  7. The Clinical Challenge Denying Reperfusion Falsely Declaring an Emergency Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  8. Definitions of “False Positive” Cardiac Cath Lab Activation • No culprit • No significant coronary disease • Negative cardiac biomarkers Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  9. Results from the Level 1 MI Program • From 3/03 to 11/06, 1,345 STEMI patients enrolled in Level 1 MI program including 1,048 transferred from 30 rural or community hospitals. • 149 (11.2%) had normal cardiac biomarker levels. Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  10. “False Positive” Cath lab Activations STEMI Diagnosis N=1,345 5 died prior to angio 5 Case canceled Angiography N=1,335 Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007 Multiple potential culprits N=10 (0.7%) No Angiographic Culprit N=187 (14%) Clear culprit N=1138 (85.3%

  11. No Culprit N=187 (14%) Mod-Severe CAD N =60 (4.5%) No Significant CAD N = 127 (9.5%) Positive Cardiac Markers N= 16 (27%) Negative Cardiac Markers N = 44 (73%) Positive Cardiac Markers N= 48 (38%) Negative Cardiac Markers N = 79 (62%)

  12. With a culprit Clear culprit N=1138 Multiple Potential Culprits N=10 Positive Cardiac Markers N= 1112 Negative Cardiac Markers N = 26 Positive Cardiac Markers N= 10 Negative Cardiac Markers N = 0 Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007

  13. No Angiographic Culprit N=187 (14%) Negative Cardiac Markers N = 123 (9.2%) Positive Cardiac Markers N= 64 (4.8%) Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007

  14. No culprit and negative markers by Hospital ED Volume ED visits/year Not significant Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007

  15. Left Bundle Branch Block • New or presumed new LBBB observed in 36 (2.6%) of patients • No culprit: 16 (44%) • No significant CAD: 10 (27%) • Negative cardiac biomarkers: 13 (36%) • 30 day mortality in those with new LBBB was 8.3% Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  16. Gender differences • 381 (28.3%) women enrolled in Level 1 registry • No culprit: 17.1% women vs 12.7% men (p=0.04) • No significant CAD: 13.6% women vs 7.9% men (p=0.001) • Negative biomarkers: 12.3% women vs 10.6% men (p=0.36) • Stress cardiomyopathy may account for differences Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  17. Summary: Incidence of “False Positive” Cath Lab Activation • No culprit: 14% • Normal or Minimal CAD: 9.5% • Negative cardiac markers: 11.2% • Combination of no culprit and negative biomarkers: 9.2% Larson, DM et al JAMA 2007;298(23):2754-2760

  18. Conclusions • The incidence of “false positive” ECGs in STEMI patients treated with Primary PCI is similar to previous data in patients treated with thrombolytic therapy. • Patients presenting with “False Positive” ST elevation are a heterogeneous group, many with other serious cardiac conditions.

More Related