This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Shlipak and colleagues¹ assessed the value of our electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria to diagnose acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with left bundle-branch block (BBB).² The conclusion, that our algorithm is worse than a "thrombolysis to all" approach, seems unsubstantiated. Idiosyncratic characteristics of the studied population may explain the low sensitivity of our ECG criteria, whereas assumptions in the decision analysis may have amplified the benefits of thrombolysis. The criterion standard selected for a study like this is critical. Elevations in creatine kinase-MB isoenzyme and troponin I (sensitive and specific markers of myocardial damage) cannot be equated to benefit from thrombolysis. The unusually high prevalence of AMI (56%) among patients with cardiac arrest in this series is unlikely to reflect acute coronary thrombosis.³ Unfortunately, the distribution of clinical presentations was not reported. Although the sensitivity remained low when only patients with chest pain were considered, the smaller . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Should the Electrocardiogram Be Used to Guide Therapy for Patients With Left Bundle-Branch Block and Suspected Myocardial Infarction?
Michael G. Shlipak, William L. Lyons, Alan S. Go, Tony M. Chou, G. Thomas Evans, and Warren S. Browner
JAMA. 1999;281(8):714-719.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT