Skip to main content
Log in

Observer Variability in ECG Interpretation for Thrombolysis Eligibility: Experience and Context Matter

  • Published:
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Despite the known benefit of thrombolysis it remains underutilized among eligible patients with acute myocardial infarction. We sought to determine whether potential errors in ECG interpretation might be a contributing factor and to what extent clinical history, a checklist outlining recognized inclusion criteria and a computerized interpretation would influence reliability and accuracy.

Methods: Seventy-five ECGs were interpreted on 8 separate occasions by 9 clinicians (3 cardiologists, 3 cardiology fellows, 3 medical residents) according to a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design.

Results: The overall level of agreement among all raters was substantial with a kappa (κ) of 70.4%. Intra-observer ECG reading reliability was stronger among cardiologists (CC) as compared with cardiology fellows (CF) and medical residents (MR). Similarly, inter-observer reliability was substantial to very good and a gradient was seen with greater reliability among CC, followed by CF, then MR (P = 0.0013). CC recommended thrombolysis significantly more frequently (p < 0.001) than either CF or MR. Trainees were biased by the presence of a computerized ECG interpretation resulting in a decision to recommend thrombolysis administration less often.

Conclusion: The reliability of ECG interpretation for deciding to administer thrombolysis was substantial; there was a gradient from lowest to highest commensurate with training and experience. Errors in thrombolysis eligibility are influenced by clinical history and the presence of a computerized ECG interpretation among less experienced clinicians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ohman EM, Harrington RA, Cannon CP, et al. Intravenous thrombolysis. Chest 2001; 119 (Suppl): 253S-277S.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' (FTT) Collaborative Group.Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: Collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 1994;343:311-321.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The International Study Group. In-hospital mortality and clinical course of 20,891 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction randomized between alteplase and streptokinase with or without heparin. Lancet 1990;336:71-75.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Canadian Consensus Conference on Coronary Thrombolysis: 1994 Recommendations. Can J Cardiol 1994;10:522-529.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ryan TJ, Anderson JL, Antman EM, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:1328- 1428.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blankenship JC, Almquist AK. Cardiovascular complications of thrombolytic therapy in patients with a mistaken diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.JAmColl Cardiol 1989;14:1579-1582.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lee TH, Weisberg MC, Brand DA, Rouan GW, Goldman L. Candidates for thrombolysis among emergency patients with acute chest pain. Potential true-and false-positive rates. Ann Int Med 1989;110:957-962.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doorey AJ, Michelson EL, Topol EJ. Thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction: Keeping the unfulfilled promises. JAMA1992;268:3108-3114.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jayes RL Jr, Beshansky JR, D'Agostino RB, Selker HP.Physician electrocardiogram reading in the emergency department–Accuracy and effect on triage decisions: Findings from a multi-center study. J Gen Intern Med 1992;7:387-392.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McCarthy BD, Beshansky JR, D'Agostino RB, Selker HP.Missed diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department: Results from a multicenter study.Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:579-582.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chapman GD, Ohman M, Topol EJ, et al. Minimizing the risk of inappropriately administering thrombolytic therapy (Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction [TAMI] Study Group). Am J Cardiol 1993;71:783-787.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gemmill JD, Lifson WK, Rae AP, Hilllis WS, Dunn FG. Assessment by general practitioners of suitability of thrombolysis in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction.Br Heart J 1993;70:503-506.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sharkey SW, Berger CR, Brunette DD, Henry TD. Impact of electrocardiogram on the delivery of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1994;73:550-553.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Otto LA, Aufderheide TP. Evaluation of ST segment elevation criteria for the prehospital electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:17-24.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Berkowitz SC, Granger CB, Pieper KS, et al. Incidence and predictors of bleeding after contemporary thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction. Circulation 1997;95:2508-2516.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kellett J, Clarke J. Comparison of "accelerated" tissue plasminogen activator with streptokinase for treatment of suspected myocardial infarction. Med Decis Making 1995;15:297-310.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kudenchuk PJ, Ho MT, Weaver WD, et al. Accuracy of computer-interpreted electrocardiography in selecting patients for thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:1486-1491.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Julian DG. Thrombolysis, the general practitioner, and the electrocardiogram. Br Heart J 1994;72:220-221.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rowlandson I, Kudenchuk PJ, Elko PP. Computerized recognition of infarction. Criteria advances and test results.J Electrocardiol 1990; 23 (Suppl): 1-5.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Collins MS, Carter JE, Dougherty JM, et al. Hyperacute T-wave criteria using computer ECG analysis. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:114-120.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Willems JL, Abreu-Lima C, Arnaud P, et al. The diagnostic performance of computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms. N Engl JMed 1991;325:1767-1773.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Elko PP, Weaver WD, Kudenchuk P, Rowlandson I.The dilemma of sensitivity and specificity in computerinterpreted acute myocardial infarction. J Electrocardiol 1992; 24 (Suppl): 2-7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Massel D, Dawdy JA, Melendez LJ. Strict reliance on a computer algorithm or measurable ST segment criteria may lead to errors in thrombolytic therapy eligibility. Am Heart J 2000;140:221-226.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Selker HP, Griffith JL, D'Agostino RB. A tool for judging coronary care unit admission appropriateness, valid for both real-time and retrospective use. Med Care 1991;29:610-627.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Selker HP, Griffith JL, Beshansky JR, et al. Patientspecific predictions of outcomes in myocardial infarction for real-time emergency use: A thrombolytic predictive instrument.Ann Intern Med 1997;127:538-556.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Clinical disagreement: I. How often it occurs and why. Can Med Assoc J 1980;123:499-504.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Acheson RM. Observer error and variation in the interpretation of electrocardiograms in an epidemiological study of coronary heart disease. Brit J Prev Soc Med 1960;14:99-122.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fischmann E, Cosma J, Pipberger HV. Beat to beat and observer variation of the electrocardiogram. Am Heart J 1968;75:465-473.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Weston MJ, Bett JHN, Over R. Consensus opinion and observer accuracy in electrocardiography with reference to coronary arteriographic information. Aust NZ J Med 1976;6:429-432.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tandberg D, Kastendieck KD, Meskin S. Observer variation in measured ST-segment elevation. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:448-452.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:543-549.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Willems JL, Robles de Medine EO, Bernard R, et al.Criteria for intraventricular conduction disturbances and pre-excitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;5:1261-1275.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37-46.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. Lancet 1992;304:1491-1494.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cochran WG. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 1950;37:256-266.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research.Vol. 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980. (IARC scientific publications no. 32.)

  38. Palmer DJ, Cox KL, Dear K, Leitch JW. Factors associated with delay in giving thrombolytic therapy after arrival at hospital. Med J Aust 1998;168:111-114.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sagarin MJ, Cannon CP, Cermignani MS, Scirica BM, Walls RM. Delay in thrombolysis administration: Causes of extended door-to-drug times and the asymptote effect.J Emerg Med 1998;16:557-565.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bayer AJ, Chadha J, Farag RR, Pathy MS. Changing presentation of myocardial infarction with increasing old age.J AmGeriatr Soc 1986;34:263-266.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hatala RA, Norman GR, Brooks LR. The effect of clinical information on physician's ECG interpretation skills.Acad Med 1996;71(10 Suppl):S68-S70.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hatala R, Norman GR, Brooks LR. Impact of a clinical scenario on accuracy of electrocardiogram interpretation.J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:126-129.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dunn PM, Levinson W. The lack of effect of clinical information on electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1917- 1919.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Berger AK, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Factors associated with delay in reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: Analysis of the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Am Heart J 2000;139:985-992.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Brady WJ, Chan TC, Pollack M. Electrocardiogaphic manifestations: Patterns that confound the EKG diagnosis of acute myocadial infarction–Left bundle branch block, ventricular paced rhythm, and left ventricular hypertrophy.J Emerg Med 2000;18:71-78. 140 Massel

    Google Scholar 

  46. Khoury NE, Borzak S, Gokli A, Havstad SL, Smith ST, Jones M. "Inadvertent" thrombolytic administration in patients without myocardial infarction: Clinical features and outcome. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:289-293.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Manhapra A, Khaja F, Syed M, et al. Electrocardiographic presentation of blacks with first myocardial infarction does not explain race differences in thrombolysis administration.Am Heart J 2000;140:200-205.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Barron HV, Bowlby LJ, Breen T, et al. Use of reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction in the United States: Data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Circulation 1998;97:1150-1156.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Holmvang L, Hasbak P, Clemmensen P, Wagner G, Grande P. Differences between local investigator and core laboratory interpretation of the admission electrocardiogram in patients with unstable angina pectoris or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (A ThRombin Inhibition in Myocardial Ischemia [TRIM] Substudy). Am J Cardiol 1998;82:54-60.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ottesen MM, Kober L, Jorgensen S, et al. Consequences of overutilization and underutilization of thrombolytic therapy in clinical practice. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1581- 1587.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yusuf S, Pearson M, Sterry H, et al. The entry ECG in the early diagnosis and prognostic stratification of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 1984;5:690-696.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Long-term effects of intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: Final report of the GISSI study. Lancet 1986;1:397-402.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Posen MW, D'Agostino RB, Selker HP, Sytkowski PA, Hood WB. A predictive instrument to improve coronary care unit admission practices in acute ischemic heart disease.H Engl J Med 1984;310:1273-1278.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wilcox RG, Olsson CG, Skene AM, et al. Trial of tissue plasminogen activator for mortality reduction in acute myocardial infarction. Anglo-Scandinavian Study of Early Thrombolysis (ASSET). Lancet 1988;2:525-530.

    Google Scholar 

  55. The Thrombolysis Early in Acute Heart Attack Trial Study Group. Very early thrombolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1990;65:401-407.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lee TH, Weisberg MC, Brand DA, Rouan GW, Goldman L. Candidates for thrombolysis among emergency room patients with acute chest pain. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:957-962.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rogers WJ, Bowlby LJ, Chandra NC, et al. Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993).Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 1994;90:2103-2114.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lambrew CT, Bowlby LJ, Rogers WJ, et al. Factors influencing the time to thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:2577-2582.

    Google Scholar 

  59. French JK, Williams BF, Hart HH, et al. Prospective evaluation of eligibility for thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. BMJ 1996;312:1637-1641.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ferry DR, O'Rourke RA, Blausten AS, et al. Design and baseline characteristics of the Veterans Affairs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Strategies In-Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial. J AmColl Cardiol 1998;31:312-320.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Storey RF, Rowley JM. Electrocardiogram interpretation as a basis for thrombolysis. J R Coll Physicians London 1997;31:536-540.

    Google Scholar 

  62. PCAT Collaborators. Primary coronary angioplasty compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: Six-month follow-up and analysis of individual patient data. Am Heart J 2002;145:47-57.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL.Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: A quantitative review of the 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003;361:13-20.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Massel, D. Observer Variability in ECG Interpretation for Thrombolysis Eligibility: Experience and Context Matter. J Thromb Thrombolysis 15, 131–140 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:THRO.0000011368.55165.97

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:THRO.0000011368.55165.97

Navigation