We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Emergency department interpretation of electrocardiograms.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 1992 May
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the concordance of emergency physicians' and cardiologists' interpretations of abnormal ECGs.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: An urban teaching hospital emergency department.
TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an abnormal ED ECG that was interpreted by both an emergency physician and a cardiologist and who were discharged from the ED.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven hundred sixteen ECGs were reviewed; 143 abnormal ECGs were obtained on patients discharged from the ED. The cardiologist's final interpretation was defined as correct, and discordance was any abnormality not identified by the emergency physician. The overall discordance between emergency physicians' and cardiologists' ECG interpretations was 58.0% (P less than .001). Twenty-five discordant interpretations were likely clinically significant--representing missed ischemia, infarct, and abnormal rhythm. There was no ED interpretation in three of these. The most frequently missed findings by emergency physicians were evidence of ischemia/infarct of the anterior wall and atrial fibrillation. Twenty-one of the 83 patients with discordant interpretations were lost to follow-up. Two cases had a clinically significant discrepancy that would have altered patient care.
CONCLUSION: Although the overall discordance was more than 50%, most ED misinterpretations were determined unlikely to have clinical significance. Additional studies are needed to identify variables that contribute to ED ECG misinterpretation and to develop methods to resolve these difficulties.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: An urban teaching hospital emergency department.
TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an abnormal ED ECG that was interpreted by both an emergency physician and a cardiologist and who were discharged from the ED.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven hundred sixteen ECGs were reviewed; 143 abnormal ECGs were obtained on patients discharged from the ED. The cardiologist's final interpretation was defined as correct, and discordance was any abnormality not identified by the emergency physician. The overall discordance between emergency physicians' and cardiologists' ECG interpretations was 58.0% (P less than .001). Twenty-five discordant interpretations were likely clinically significant--representing missed ischemia, infarct, and abnormal rhythm. There was no ED interpretation in three of these. The most frequently missed findings by emergency physicians were evidence of ischemia/infarct of the anterior wall and atrial fibrillation. Twenty-one of the 83 patients with discordant interpretations were lost to follow-up. Two cases had a clinically significant discrepancy that would have altered patient care.
CONCLUSION: Although the overall discordance was more than 50%, most ED misinterpretations were determined unlikely to have clinical significance. Additional studies are needed to identify variables that contribute to ED ECG misinterpretation and to develop methods to resolve these difficulties.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app