Yochai Birnbaum1, Jani Rankinen2, Hani Jneid3, Dan Atar4, Kjell Nikus5. 1. Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, MS: BCM620, 77030, USA. ybirnbau@bcm.edu. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland. 3. Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, MS: BCM620, 77030, USA. 4. Dept. of Cardiology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo University Hospital Ulleval, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, Norway. 5. Heart Center, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since its inception in 1902 by Willem Einthoven, the electrocardiogram (ECG) has fundamentally undergone minimal technological advances. Nevertheless, its clinical utility is critical, and it remains an essential tool to diagnose, risk stratify, and guide reperfusion and invasive strategies in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. ECG reading can be demanding, with many healthcare professionals lacking the necessary expertise to accurately interpret them. This is exacerbated by the need to constantly revisit old dogmas pertinent to the interpretation of ECGs. RECENT FINDINGS: Notably, ECG leads record the global electrical activity of the heart toward and away from each electrode rather than local events. The long-held central paradigm that the various ECG leads record local events underneath specific electrodes should therefore be reassessed. For example, ST segment elevation in leads V1 and V2 usually denote antero-apical rather than septal infarction, often a misnomer utilized by the majority of clinicians. The ECG diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is sometimes challenging and discerning it from non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is of paramount importance to implement timely acute reperfusion therapy. In fact, when qualifications for emergency reperfusion therapy are based on STEMI ECG criteria, nearly one-third of cases with acute coronary occlusion are missed. Diagnostic ST elevation in the absence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy or left bundle-branch block (LBBB) is defined by a specific set of sex-specific criteria for new ST elevation at the J point in contiguous precordial or limb leads. However, other ECG criteria need to be kept in mind. These include, but are not limited to, new or presumably new left bundle branch block (LBBB), which is often considered as an STEMI-equivalent; ST depression in two or more precordial leads (V1-V4), denoting a true inferolateral transmural myocardial infarction; and the infrequent presentation with hyperacute T-wave changes. As our understanding of the pathology of ischemic reperfusion injury has evolved and following the introduction of new imaging modalities such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, we need to re-assess the old dogmas pertinent to the interpretation of ECGs and update the terms and classifications.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since its inception in 1902 by Willem Einthoven, the electrocardiogram (ECG) has fundamentally undergone minimal technological advances. Nevertheless, its clinical utility is critical, and it remains an essential tool to diagnose, risk stratify, and guide reperfusion and invasive strategies in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. ECG reading can be demanding, with many healthcare professionals lacking the necessary expertise to accurately interpret them. This is exacerbated by the need to constantly revisit old dogmas pertinent to the interpretation of ECGs. RECENT FINDINGS: Notably, ECG leads record the global electrical activity of the heart toward and away from each electrode rather than local events. The long-held central paradigm that the various ECG leads record local events underneath specific electrodes should therefore be reassessed. For example, ST segment elevation in leads V1 and V2 usually denote antero-apical rather than septal infarction, often a misnomer utilized by the majority of clinicians. The ECG diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is sometimes challenging and discerning it from non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is of paramount importance to implement timely acute reperfusion therapy. In fact, when qualifications for emergency reperfusion therapy are based on STEMI ECG criteria, nearly one-third of cases with acute coronary occlusion are missed. Diagnostic ST elevation in the absence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy or left bundle-branch block (LBBB) is defined by a specific set of sex-specific criteria for new ST elevation at the J point in contiguous precordial or limb leads. However, other ECG criteria need to be kept in mind. These include, but are not limited to, new or presumably new left bundle branch block (LBBB), which is often considered as an STEMI-equivalent; ST depression in two or more precordial leads (V1-V4), denoting a true inferolateral transmural myocardial infarction; and the infrequent presentation with hyperacute T-wave changes. As our understanding of the pathology of ischemic reperfusion injury has evolved and following the introduction of new imaging modalities such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, we need to re-assess the old dogmas pertinent to the interpretation of ECGs and update the terms and classifications.
Authors: Lauren Dowdy; Galen S Wagner; Yochai Birnbaum; Peter Clemmensen; Yuling Fu; Charles Maynard; Ian Menown; Maria Sejersten; Dwayne Young; Per Johanson; Alejandro Barbagelata Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Antonio Bayés de Luna; Wojciech Zareba; Miquel Fiol; Kjell Nikus; Yochai Birnbaum; Rafael Baranowski; Diego Goldwasser; Paul Kligfield; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Günter Breithardt; Hein Wellens Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Yochai Birnbaum; Miguel Fiol; Kjell Nikus; Javier Garcia Niebla; Ljuba Bacharova; Sergio Dubner; Wojciech Zareba; Peter W Macfarlane; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Antoni Bayes de Luna Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao; Jeffrey L Anderson; Alice K Jacobs; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Ralph G Brindis; Mark A Creager; David DeMets; Robert A Guyton; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; Frederick G Kushner; E Magnus Ohman; William G Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Uwe Zeymer; Kurt Huber; Yuling Fu; Allan Ross; Christopher Granger; Patrick Goldstein; Frans van de Werf; Paul Armstrong Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2012-06
Authors: Borja Ibanez; Stefan James; Stefan Agewall; Manuel J Antunes; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Héctor Bueno; Alida L P Caforio; Filippo Crea; John A Goudevenos; Sigrun Halvorsen; Gerhard Hindricks; Adnan Kastrati; Mattie J Lenzen; Eva Prescott; Marco Roffi; Marco Valgimigli; Christoph Varenhorst; Pascal Vranckx; Petr Widimský Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: H Pendell Meyers; Alexander Bracey; Daniel Lee; Andrew Lichtenheld; Wei J Li; Daniel D Singer; Zach Rollins; Jesse A Kane; Kenneth W Dodd; Kristen E Meyers; Gautam R Shroff; Adam J Singer; Stephen W Smith Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2021-04-12
Authors: Yochai Birnbaum; Glenn N Levine; John French; Juan Carlos Kaski; Dan Atar; Mahboob Alam; David Hasdai; Hani Jneid; Barry F Uretsky Journal: Cardiovasc Drugs Ther Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 3.727