Among patients with left bundle branch block, T-wave peak to T-wave end time is prolonged in the presence of acute coronary occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the effect of myocardial ischemia on ventricular repolarization in the setting of left bundle branch block (LBBB) poses a challenge due to secondary prolongation of the QT interval inherent in LBBB. The T-wave peak to T-wave end (TpTe) interval has been noted to prolong during myocardial ischemia and correct after reperfusion in patients with normal conduction. Here we compare the TpTe intervals of patients with LBBB both with and without complete acute coronary occlusion (ACO). METHODS: Retrospectively, emergency department patients with LBBB and symptoms of myocardial ischemia were identified both with angiographically-proven ACO and with No-ACO. The longest QT, JT, and TpTe intervals were analyzed. RESULTS: The ACO and No-ACO groups consisted of 33 and 129 patients, respectively. The mean TpTe was longer in ACO (103.6ms [95%CI 98.5-108.7]) compared to No-ACO patients (88.6ms [95%CI 85.3-91.9]) (P<0.0001) and this held true after correction for heart rate. In ACO versus No-ACO, the TpTe also more frequently exceeded prolongation cutoffs of 85ms (30 [90%] versus 69 [54%]) and 100ms (25 [76%] versus 42 [33%]) (P<0.0001 for all). The mean QT, JT, QTc, and JTc intervals were not significantly different between the groups for either the Bazett's or Rautaharju's correction formulas. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LBBB on the ECG, the TpTe is longer and more frequently prolonged in patients with ACO compared to patients without ACO. Future studies of ventricular repolarization in patients with LBBB should include analyses of the TpTe interval.

Comparison of the QRS Complex, ST-Segment, and T-Wave Among Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block with and without Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The modified Sgarbossa criteria have been validated as a rule for diagnosis of acute coronary occlusion (ACO) in left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, no analysis has been done on differences in the QRS complex, T-wave, or ST-segment concordance of < 1 mm in the derivation or validation studies. Furthermore, there was no comparison of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) but without ACO (i.e., non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction [non-STEMI]) to patients with ACO or without AMI (no MI). OBJECTIVE: We compare findings involving the QRS amplitude, ST-segment morphology, ST-concordance < 1 mm, and T-waves in patients with LBBB with ACO, non-STEMI, and no MI. METHODS: Retrospectively, emergency department patients were identified with LBBB and ischemic symptoms but no MI, with angiographically proven ACO, and with non-STEMI. RESULTS: ACO, non-STEMI, and no MI groups consisted of 33, 24, and 105 patients. The sum of the maximum deflection of the QRS amplitude across all leads (ΣQRS) was smaller in patients with ACO than those without ACO (101.5 mm vs. 132.5 mm; p < 0.0001) and a cutoff of ΣQRS < 90 mm was 92% specific. For ACO, non-concave ST-segment morphology was 91% specific, any ST concordance ≥ 1 mm was 95% specific, and any ST concordance ≥ 0.5 mm was 94% sensitive. For non-STEMI, terminal T-wave concordance, analogous to biphasic T-waves, was moderately sensitive at 79%. CONCLUSIONS: We found differences in QRS amplitude, ST-segment morphology, and T-waves between patients with LBBB and ACO, non-STEMI, and no MI. However, none of these criteria outperformed the modified Sgarbossa criteria for diagnosis of ACO in LBBB.

Clinical Decision Rules for Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference. RESULTS: A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED? CONCLUSIONS: The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.