Feasibility of combining serial smartphone single-lead electrocardiograms for the diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The rate-limiting step in STEMI diagnosis often is the availability of a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and its interpretation. The potential may exist to speed the availability of 12-lead ECG information by using commonly available mobile technologies. We sought to test whether combining serial smartphone single-lead ECGs to create a virtual 12-lead ECG can accurately diagnose STEMI. METHODS: Consenting patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a possible STEMI had contemporaneous standard 12-lead and smartphone '12-lead equivalent' ECG (produced by electronically combining serial single-lead ECGs) recordings obtained. Matched ECGs were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively by a panel of blinded readers and classified as STEMI/STEMI equivalent (LBBB), Not-STEMI, or uninterpretable. Interpretable ECG pairs were graded as showing good, fair, or poor correlation. RESULTS: Two hundred four subjects (age = 60 years, males = 57%, STEMI activation = 45%) were enrolled from 5 international sites. Smartphone ECG quality was graded as good in 151 (74.0%), fair in 32 (15.7%), poor in 8 (3.9%), and uninterpretable in 13 (6.4%). A STEMI/STEMI equivalent diagnosis was identified by standard 12-lead ECG in 57/204 (27.9%) recordings. For all interpretable pairs of smartphone ECGs compared with standard ECGs (n = 190), the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for STEMI/STEMI equivalent by smartphone were 0.89, 0.84, 0.70 and 0.95, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A '12-lead equivalent' ECG obtained from multiple serial single-lead ECGs from a smartphone can identify STEMI with good correlation to a standard 12-lead ECG. This technology holds promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enhancing the reach and speed of diagnosis and thereby early treatment.

Smartphone ECG for evaluation of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): Design of the ST LEUIS International Multicenter Study.

In patients experiencing an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), rapid diagnosis and immediate access to reperfusion therapy leads to optimal clinical outcomes. The rate-limiting step in STEMI diagnosis is the availability and performance of a 12-lead ECG. Recent technology has provided access to a reliable means of obtaining an ECG reading through a smartphone application (app) that works with an attachment providing all 12-leads of a standard ECG system. The ST LEUIS study was designed to validate the smartphone ECG app and its ability to accurately assess the presence or absence of STEMI in patients presenting with chest pain compared with the gold standard 12-lead ECG. We aimed to support the diagnostic utility of smartphone technology to provide a timely diagnosis and treatment of STEMI. The study will take place over 12months at five institutions. Approximately 60 patients will be enrolled per institution, for a total recruitment of 300 patients.

Smartphone ECG for evaluation of STEMI: results of the ST LEUIS Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: 12-lead ECG is a critical component of initial evaluation of cardiac ischemia, but has traditionally been limited to large, dedicated equipment in medical care environments. Smartphones provide a potential alternative platform for the extension of ECG to new care settings and to improve timeliness of care. OBJECTIVE: To gain experience with smartphone electrocardiography prior to designing a larger multicenter study evaluating standard 12-lead ECG compared to smartphone ECG. METHODS: 6 patients for whom the hospital STEMI protocol was activated were evaluated with traditional 12-lead ECG followed immediately by a smartphone ECG using right (VnR) and left (VnL) limb leads for precordial grounding. The AliveCor™ Heart Monitor was utilized for this study. All tracings were taken prior to catheterization or immediately after revascularization while still in the catheterization laboratory. RESULTS: The smartphone ECG had excellent correlation with the gold standard 12-lead ECG in all patients. Four out of six tracings were judged to meet STEMI criteria on both modalities as determined by three experienced cardiologists, and in the remaining two, consensus indicated a non-STEMI ECG diagnosis. No significant difference was noted between VnR and VnL. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone based electrocardiography is a promising, developing technology intended to increase availability and speed of electrocardiographic evaluation. This study confirmed the potential of a smartphone ECG for evaluation of acute ischemia and the feasibility of studying this technology further to define the diagnostic accuracy, limitations and appropriate use of this new technology.

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer.

BACKGROUND: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality. RESULTS: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP): study design and research methods.

BACKGROUND: The effect of intercessory prayer (IP) on outcome in cardiac cases has been evaluated previously, but results are controversial. The goals of the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) are to evaluate the effects of receipt of additional study IP and awareness of receipt of additional study IP on outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. STEP is not designed to determine whether God exists or whether God does or does not respond to IP. METHODS: STEP is a multicenter, controlled trial of 1802 patients in 6 US hospitals, randomized to 1 of 3 groups. Two groups were informed that they may or may not receive 14 consecutive days of additional IP starting the night before coronary artery bypass graft surgery; Group 1 received IP, Group 2 did not. A third group (Group 3) was informed that they would receive additional IP and did so. Three mainstream religious sites provided daily IP for patients assigned to receive IP. At each hospital, research nurses blinded to patient group assignment reviewed medical records to determine whether complications occurred, on the basis of the Society for Thoracic Surgeons definitions. A blinded nurse auditor from the Coordinating Center reviewed every study patient's data against the medical record before release of study forms. RESULTS: The STEP Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed patient safety and outcomes in the first 900 study patients. Patients were enrolled in STEP from January 1998 to November 2000.

Concordance of physician ratings with the appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the consistency in appropriate use criteria (AUC) ratings among a broad range of practicing cardiologists and the AUC Technical Panel. BACKGROUND: AUC for coronary revascularization have been developed by selected experts. METHODS: Before AUC publication, 85 cardiologists from 10 U.S. institutions assessed the appropriateness of coronary revascularization for 68 indications that had been evaluated by the AUC Technical Panel. Each indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, based on the physician group's median rating. Rates of concordance between the physician group and the AUC Technical Panel (i.e., same appropriateness category assignment) and rates of nonagreement within the physician group (≥ 25% of panelists' ratings outside the group's appropriateness category assessment) were determined. RESULTS: Overall concordance between the 2 groups was 84%. Among indications classified as appropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, concordance between the 2 groups was excellent (94% [34 of 36]); however, nonagreement within the physician group was 44% (16 of 36). Among indications classified as uncertain, there was 73% (16 of 22) concordance between the 2 groups. Among inappropriate indications, concordance was moderate (70% [7 of 10]), but nonagreement occurred frequently (70% [7 of 10]). Moreover, there was substantial variation in appropriateness ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel (weighted kappa range: 0.05 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was good concordance in assessments of appropriateness for coronary revascularization between physicians and the AUC Technical Panel, nonagreement within the physician group was common and there was marked variation in ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel.

Surgeons' economic profiles: can we get the "right" answers?

Hospitals and payers use economic profiling to evaluate physician and surgeon performance. However, there is significant variation in the data sources and analytic methods that are used. We used information from a hospital's cardiac surgery and cost accounting information systems to create surgeon economic profiles. Three scenarios were examined: (1) surgeon modeled as fixed effect with no patient-mix adjustment; (2) surgeon modeled as fixed effect with patient-mix adjustment; (3) and surgeon modeled as random effect with patient-mix adjustment. We included 574 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery at Baptist Medical Center, Oklahoma City, OK between July 1, 1995 and April 30, 1996. We found that profiles reporting unadjusted average surgeon costs may incorrectly identify high- and low-cost outliers. Adjusting for patient-mix differences and treating surgeons as random effects was the preferred approach. These results demonstrate the need for hospitals to reexamine their economic profiling methods.