Impact of quantitative ST-T analysis in patients with suspected myocardial infarction presenting with right bundle branch block.

ECG ST-segment STEMI right bundle branch block

Journal

The American journal of medicine
ISSN: 1555-7162
Titre abrégé: Am J Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0267200

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 24 03 2024
revised: 16 04 2024
accepted: 16 04 2024
medline: 27 4 2024
pubmed: 27 4 2024
entrez: 26 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

While left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a well-known risk feature in patients with acute myocardial infarction and a rapid invasive management is recommended, data supporting this strategy for patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) is less robust. In total, 2,139 patients with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were triaged to acute coronary angiography based on a prehospital 12-lead ECG. Sensitivity and specificity for STEMI-ECG-criteria were compared in RBBB and non-BBB patients. Adjusted hazard ratios for 1-year overall mortality were computed. STEMI was adjudicated in 1,832/2,139 (85.6%) of all patients and in 102/117 (87.2%) of RBBB patients. ST-segment deviation followed typical ST-T patterns in most RBBB patients. Out of 17 RBBB patients without significant ST-changes STEMI was adjudicated in 14 (82%). Diagnostic accuracy of STEMI-criteria was comparable in RBBB and non-RBBB patients for inferior (sensitivity: 51.1% vs 59.1%, p=0.14; specificity: 66.7% vs 52.1%, p=0.33) and anterior STEMI (sensitivity: 35.2% vs 36.6%, p=0.80; specificity: 58.3% vs 49.5%, p=0.55). Diagnostic performance was lower for lateral STEMI in RBBB patients (sensitivity: 14.8% vs 4.4%, p=0.001; specificity: 75.0% vs 98.4%, p<0.001). Patients with RBBB had higher 1-year mortality compared to non-BBB patients (hazard ratio 2.3% (95% CI 1.25-4.21). ECG-criteria used for detection of STEMI showed comparable diagnostic accuracy in RBBB and non-BBB patients. However, STEMI was frequently present in RBBB patients not fulfilling diagnostic ECG-criteria. RBBB-patients showed poorer outcome after 1 year. Consequently, the presence of RBBB in suspected STEMI cases signifies a high-risk feature, aligning with established guidelines.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
While left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a well-known risk feature in patients with acute myocardial infarction and a rapid invasive management is recommended, data supporting this strategy for patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) is less robust.
METHODS METHODS
In total, 2,139 patients with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were triaged to acute coronary angiography based on a prehospital 12-lead ECG. Sensitivity and specificity for STEMI-ECG-criteria were compared in RBBB and non-BBB patients. Adjusted hazard ratios for 1-year overall mortality were computed.
RESULTS RESULTS
STEMI was adjudicated in 1,832/2,139 (85.6%) of all patients and in 102/117 (87.2%) of RBBB patients. ST-segment deviation followed typical ST-T patterns in most RBBB patients. Out of 17 RBBB patients without significant ST-changes STEMI was adjudicated in 14 (82%). Diagnostic accuracy of STEMI-criteria was comparable in RBBB and non-RBBB patients for inferior (sensitivity: 51.1% vs 59.1%, p=0.14; specificity: 66.7% vs 52.1%, p=0.33) and anterior STEMI (sensitivity: 35.2% vs 36.6%, p=0.80; specificity: 58.3% vs 49.5%, p=0.55). Diagnostic performance was lower for lateral STEMI in RBBB patients (sensitivity: 14.8% vs 4.4%, p=0.001; specificity: 75.0% vs 98.4%, p<0.001). Patients with RBBB had higher 1-year mortality compared to non-BBB patients (hazard ratio 2.3% (95% CI 1.25-4.21).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
ECG-criteria used for detection of STEMI showed comparable diagnostic accuracy in RBBB and non-BBB patients. However, STEMI was frequently present in RBBB patients not fulfilling diagnostic ECG-criteria. RBBB-patients showed poorer outcome after 1 year. Consequently, the presence of RBBB in suspected STEMI cases signifies a high-risk feature, aligning with established guidelines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38670517
pii: S0002-9343(24)00244-4
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.04.021
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Nils A Sörensen (NA)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: n.soerensen@uke.de.

Yama Fakhri (Y)

Department of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Alina Goßling (A)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Johannes T Neumann (JT)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne.

Paul M Haller (PM)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany.

Betül Toprak (B)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany.

Juliana Senftinger (J)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Jonas Lehmacher (J)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Lea Scharlemann (L)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Alina Schock (A)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Raphael Twerenbold (R)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany; University Center of Cardiovascular Science (UCCS), University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Germany.

Dirk Westermann (D)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, Freiburg/Bad Krotzingen, Germany.

Hedvig Andersson (H)

Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Lisette O Jensen (LO)

Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

Lene Holmvang (L)

Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Peter Clemmensen (P)

Department of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Medicine, Nykoebing Falster Hospital, Nykoebing F, Denmark.

Classifications MeSH