The Olson method for detection of acute myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary occlusion.

An automated ECG-based method may provide diagnostic support in the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome. The Olson method has previously proved to accurately identify the culprit artery in patients with acute coronary occlusion. METHODS: The Olson method was applied to 360 patients without acute myocardial ischemia and 52 patients with acute coronary occlusion. RESULTS: This study establishes the normal variation of the Olson wall scores in patients without acute myocardial ischemia, which provides the basis for implementation of the Olson method for triage of patients with acute coronary syndrome. All patients with acute occlusion had Olson wall scores above the upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION: The Olson method can be used for ischemia detection with very high sensitivity. Future studies are needed to explore specificity in patients with non-ischemic ST elevation.

Comparison of model-based and expert-rule based electrocardiographic identification of the culprit artery in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Culprit coronary artery assessment in the triage ECG of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is relevant a priori knowledge preceding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared a model-based automated method (Olson method) with an expert-rule based method for the culprit artery assessment. METHODS: In each of the 53 patients who were admitted with the working diagnosis of suspected ACS, scheduled for emergent angiography with a view on revascularization as initial treatment and subsequently found to have an angiographically documented completely occluded culprit artery, culprit artery location was assessed in the preceding ECG by both the model-based Olson method and the expert-rule based method that considered either visual or computer-measured J-point amplitudes. ECG culprit artery estimations were compared with the angiographic culprit lesion locations. Proportions of correct classifications were compared by a Z test at the 5% significance level. RESULTS: The Olson method performed slightly, but not significantly, better, when the expert-rule based method used visual assessment of J-point amplitudes (88.7% versus 81.1% correct; P=0.28). However, the Olson method performed significantly better when the expert-rule based method used computer-measured J-point amplitudes (88.7% versus 71.7% correct; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The automated model-based Olson method performed at least at the level of expert cardiologists using a manual rule-based method.