ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021
Human-Computer Agreement of Electrocardiogram Interpretation for Patients Referred to and Declined for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Retrospective Data Analysis Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen a patient is suspected of having an acute myocardial infarction, they are accepted or declined for primary percutaneous coronary intervention partly based on clinical assessment of their 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and ST-elevation myocardial infarction criteria.
objectiveWe retrospectively determined the agreement rate between human (specialists called activator nurses) and computer interpretations of ECGs of patients who were declined for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
methodsVarious features of patients who were referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed. Both the human and computer ECG interpretations were simplified to either "suggesting" or "not suggesting" acute myocardial infarction to avoid analysis of complex heterogeneous and synonymous diagnostic terms. Analyses, to measure agreement, and logistic regression, to determine if these ECG interpretations (and other variables such as patient age, chest pain) could predict patient mortality, were carried out.
resultsOf a total of 1464 patients referred to and declined for primary percutaneous coronary intervention, 722 (49.3%) computer diagnoses suggested acute myocardial infarction, whereas 634 (43.3%) of the human interpretations suggested acute myocardial infarction (P<.001). The human and computer agreed that there was a possible acute myocardial infarction for 342 out of 1464 (23.3%) patients. However, there was a higher rate of human-computer agreement for patients not having acute myocardial infarctions (450/1464, 30.7%). The overall agreement rate was 54.1% (792/1464). Cohen κ showed poor agreement (κ=0.08, P=.001). Only the age (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.09) and chest pain (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.89) independent variables were statistically significant (P=.008) in predicting mortality after 30 days and 1 year. The odds for mortality within 1 year of referral were lower in patients with chest pain compared to those patients without chest pain. A referral being out of hours was a trending variable (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.95-2.11, P=.09) for predicting the odds of 1-year mortality.
conclusionsMortality in patients who were declined for primary percutaneous coronary intervention was higher than the reported mortality for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients at 1 year. Agreement between computerized and human ECG interpretation is poor, perhaps leading to a high rate of inappropriate referrals. Work is needed to improve computer and human decision making when reading ECGs to ensure that patients are referred to the correct treatment facility for time-critical therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.