Edhouse J A, Sakr M, Angus J, Morris F P
Accident and Emergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield.
J Accid Emerg Med. 1999 Sep;16(5):331-5. doi: 10.1136/emj.16.5.331.
To examine the use of thrombolytic treatment in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). To evaluate electrocardiographic criteria for the identification of AMI in the presence of LBBB, and examine the implications of using these criteria in the clinical setting.
A retrospective study over two years, based in two Sheffield teaching hospitals. Patients presenting with LBBB and suspected AMI were studied by analysis of an AMI database. The proportion of patients with LBBB and AMI receiving thrombolysis, and the in-hospital delay before the start of treatment, were used as indicators of current performance. Three predictive criteria were applied to the electrocardiograms (ECGs) retrospectively, and their ability to identify acute ischaemic change assessed. The implications of using the predictive criteria in the clinical setting were explored.
Twenty three per cent (5/22) of patients with LBBB and AMI did not receive thrombolysis, in the absence of documented contraindications. The mean in-hospital treatment delay for thrombolysed patients was 154 minutes. Forty eight per cent (16/33) of those thrombolysed did not have a final clinical diagnosis of AMI. In the majority of cases (8/12), the decision not to administer thrombolysis was based on a single ECG recording. The presence of any of the predictive electrocardiographic criteria was associated with a diagnosis of AMI, with a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.95), specificity 1, positive predictive value 1, and negative predictive value 0.79. The kappa scores between four independent observers showed either substantial or near perfect agreement.
Currently, thrombolytic treatment is under-utilised in patients with LBBB and AMI, and those who are thrombolysed endure lengthy delays before treatment. Patients with any of the predictive criteria should be thrombolysed immediately. When the diagnosis is in doubt, serial ECGs may demonstrate evolving ischaemic change.
研究疑似急性心肌梗死(AMI)并伴有左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)患者的溶栓治疗应用情况。评估在存在LBBB时识别AMI的心电图标准,并探讨在临床环境中使用这些标准的意义。
在两家谢菲尔德教学医院进行的一项为期两年的回顾性研究。通过分析AMI数据库,对出现LBBB且疑似AMI的患者进行研究。将LBBB且AMI患者接受溶栓治疗的比例以及开始治疗前的住院延迟时间作为当前治疗效果的指标。对心电图(ECG)进行回顾性应用三种预测标准,并评估其识别急性缺血性改变的能力。探讨在临床环境中使用预测标准的意义。
在无记录的禁忌证情况下,23%(5/22)的LBBB且AMI患者未接受溶栓治疗。接受溶栓治疗患者的平均住院治疗延迟时间为154分钟。48%(16/33)接受溶栓治疗的患者最终临床诊断并非AMI。在大多数病例(8/12)中,不进行溶栓治疗的决定基于单次ECG记录。任何预测性心电图标准的存在均与AMI诊断相关,敏感性为0.79(95%置信区间0.63至0.95),特异性为1,阳性预测值为1,阴性预测值为0.79。四位独立观察者之间的kappa评分显示出高度或近乎完美的一致性。
目前,LBBB且AMI患者的溶栓治疗未得到充分利用,接受溶栓治疗的患者在治疗前忍受长时间延迟。具有任何预测标准的患者应立即接受溶栓治疗。当诊断存疑时,系列ECG可能显示缺血性改变的进展。