Comparative accuracy of manual versus computerized electrocardiographic measurement of J-, ST- and T-wave deviations in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Accurate and rapid electrocardiographic interpretation is of crucial importance in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Computerized electrocardiographic algorithms are often used in out-of-hospital settings. Their accuracy should be carefully validated in ACS, particularly in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. This study evaluated the comparative accuracy of lead-specific computer-based versus manual measurements of the J-point, ST-segment, and T-wave deviations in standard 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) (excluding lead aVR). Sixty-nine consecutive patients with suspected ACS were included. The interobserver reliability in the determination of ST-segment deviation>or=0.2 mV in leads V2 and V3 was very good (kappa=0.94 and 0.93, respectively). Agreement between a cardiologist and the computer regarding ST elevation>or=0.2 mV in lead V2 was moderate (kappa=0.72) and in V3 was very good (kappa=0.85). For ST depression or elevation>or=0.05 mV in lead LIII, agreement was good and moderate (kappa=0.79 and 0.51, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated clinically acceptable limits of agreement comparing measurements of the J point and the T wave, but clinically inadequate limits of agreement with respect to ST-segment deviation, between the electrocardiographer and the computer. The optimal cut-off points were 0.115 mV (sensitivity 89%, specificity 98%) for the computer program to detect ST elevation>or=0.2 mV and 0.045 mV (sensitivity 74%, specificity 99%) for revealing ST elevation>or=0.1 mV. It was found that automatically measured ST-segment deviations were smaller than those manually measured. In conclusion, a correction should be performed to obtain optimal results in the automated analysis of ECGs, because the results have important implications for clinical decision making.

[1]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[2]  B. Drew,et al.  Computer versus manual measurement of ST-segment deviation. , 1997, Journal of electrocardiology.

[3]  M. Simoons,et al.  Prehospital versus hospital fibrinolytic therapy using automated versus cardiologist electrocardiographic diagnosis of myocardial infarction: abortion of myocardial infarction and unjustified fibrinolytic therapy. , 2004, American heart journal.

[4]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[5]  Frans Van de Werf,et al.  Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2003 .

[6]  G. Wagner,et al.  Differences between local investigator and core laboratory interpretation of the admission electrocardiogram in patients with unstable angina pectoris or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (a Thrombin Inhibition in Myocardial Ischemia [TRIM] substudy). , 1998, The American journal of cardiology.

[7]  Mark E Josephson,et al.  Use of the electrocardiogram in acute myocardial infarction. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  J E Pope,et al.  Development and validation of an automated method of the Selvester QRS scoring system for myocardial infarct size. , 1988, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  O Pahlm,et al.  Performance of the automated complete Selvester QRS scoring system in normal subjects and patients with single and multiple myocardial infarctions. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  D. Massel,et al.  Strict reliance on a computer algorithm or measurable ST segment criteria may lead to errors in thrombolytic therapy eligibility. , 2000, American heart journal.

[11]  R. Prineas,et al.  Changing electrocardiographic recording technology and diagnostic accuracy of myocardial infarction criteria. Improved standards for evaluation of ECG measurement precision. , 1978, Journal of electrocardiology.

[12]  H. Helenius,et al.  Automated electrocardiographic scores to estimate myocardial injury size during the course of acute myocardial infarction. , 1999, The American journal of cardiology.

[13]  I. Menown,et al.  Optimizing the initial 12-lead electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. , 2000, European heart journal.

[14]  P. Elko,et al.  A statistical analysis of the ECG measurements used in computerized interpretation of acute anterior myocardial infarction with applications to interpretive criteria development. , 1992, Journal of electrocardiology.

[15]  Carl J Pepine,et al.  ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  B Rotman,et al.  Comparison of different methods of ST measurement for evaluation of myocardial ischaemia in Holter monitoring. , 1988, European heart journal.

[17]  S. Goodacre,et al.  Do computer generated ECG reports improve interpretation by accident and emergency senior house officers? , 2001, Postgraduate medical journal.