Bischof Johanna E, Worrall Christine I, Smith Stephen W
Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, 2801 Gantenbein Ave., Portland, OR 97227, United States.
Buffalo Hospital, 303 Catlin St., Buffalo, MN 55313, United States.
J Electrocardiol. 2018 Nov-Dec;51(6):977-980. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2018.08.010. Epub 2018 Aug 10.
In the presence of inferior myocardial infarction (MI), ST depression (STD) in lead I has been claimed to be accurate for diagnosis of right ventricular (RV) MI. We sought to evaluate this claim and also whether ST Elevation (STE) in lead V1 would be helpful, with or without STD in V2.
Retrospective study of consecutive inferior STEMI, comparing ECGs of patients with, to those without, RVMI, as determined by angiographic coronary occlusion proximal to the RV marginal branch. STE and STD were measured at the J-point, relative to the PQ junction. The primary outcomes were sensitivity/specificity of 1) STD in lead I ≥ 0.5 mm and 2) STE in lead V1 ≥ 0.5 mm, stratified by presence or absence of posterior (inferobasal) MI, as determined by ≥0.5 mm STD in lead V2, for differentiating RVMI from non-RVMI.
Of 149 patients with inferior STEMI, 43 (29%) had RVMI and 106 (71%) did not. There was no difference in the presence or absence of at least 0.5 mm STD in Lead I between patients with (37/43, 86%) vs. without RVMI (85/106, 80%, p = 0.56). In those with, vs. without, RVMI, (15/43, 35%) had STE in V1, versus (17/106, 16%) (p = 0.015). Specificity of STE in V1 for RVMI was 84%; sensitivity was 35%. Sensitivity was higher without (69%), than with (35%), STD in V2.
Among inferior STEMI, the presence of any ST depression in lead I does not help to diagnose RVMI. ST elevation ≥0.5 mm in lead V1 is specific for RVMI, and moderately sensitive only if concomitant STD ≥ 0.5 mm in V2 is not present. Although STE in V1 is quite specific, overall the diagnostic characteristics of the standard 12‑lead ECG are inadequate to definitively diagnose, or exclude, RVMI, as defined angiographically.
在下壁心肌梗死(MI)的情况下,I导联ST段压低(STD)被认为可准确诊断右心室(RV)MI。我们试图评估这一说法,以及V1导联ST段抬高(STE)是否有用,无论V2导联有无STD。
对连续性下壁ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者进行回顾性研究,比较有RVMI患者与无RVMI患者的心电图,RVMI由右心室边缘支近端的冠状动脉造影闭塞确定。在J点测量STE和STD,相对于PQ结。主要结局是1)I导联STD≥0.5mm和2)V1导联STE≥0.5mm的敏感性/特异性,根据V2导联是否存在≥0.5mm STD确定有无后壁(下基底)MI进行分层,以区分RVMI和非RVMI。
149例下壁ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者中,43例(29%)有RVMI,106例(71%)无RVMI。有RVMI患者(37/43,86%)与无RVMI患者(85/106,80%)相比,I导联至少0.5mm STD的有无无差异(p = 0.56)。有RVMI患者与无RVMI患者相比,V1导联有STE的比例分别为(15/43,35%)和(17/106,16%)(p = 0.015)。V1导联STE对RVMI的特异性为84%;敏感性为35%。V2导联无STD时敏感性较高(69%),有STD时敏感性较低(35%)。
在下壁ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者中,I导联出现任何ST段压低无助于诊断RVMI。V1导联ST段抬高≥0.5mm对RVMI具有特异性,仅在V2导联无≥0.5mm STD伴随时敏感性中等。虽然V1导联STE相当特异,但总体而言,标准12导联心电图的诊断特征不足以明确诊断或排除血管造影定义的RVMI。