You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 299 No. 16, April 23/30, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Quality of Care
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Diagnosis
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Cardiac Diagnostic Tests
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Misinterpretation of Electrocardiograms and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activations—Reply

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

In Reply: We agree with Dr Yan and colleagues that false-positive activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory may be entirely appropriate. We also agree that accurate interpretation of the ECG is a critical issue and that ongoing quality improvement efforts should be in place to avoid unnecessary catheterization laboratory activation.

Yan et al point out that the prevalence of clearly inappropriate referrals for primary percutaneous coronary intervention was lower than in previous studies. This is likely to be related to the extensive initial training at each referral site as well as a quality improvement program that provides immediate feedback to the emergency physician for each individual case, allowing angiographic correlation with the clinical and ECG findings. In addition, the false-positive cardiac catheterization activation range of 9% to 14% is based primarily on the emergency department physician diagnosis. Depending on the algorithm used, prehospital diagnosis and triage may be associated with . . . [Full Text of this Article]

David M. Larson, MD; Scott W. Sharkey, MD; Timothy D. Henry, MD
henry003@umn.edu
Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation at Abbott Northwestern Hospital
Minneapolis, Minnesota



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

RELATED ARTICLE

Prognostic Value of a Normal or Nonspecific Initial Electrocardiogram in Acute Myocardial Infarction
Robert D. Welch, Robert J. Zalenski, Paul D. Frederick, Judith A. Malmgren, Scott Compton, Mary Grzybowski, Sophia Thomas, Terry Kowalenko, Nathan R. Every, and for the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 and 3 Investigators
JAMA. 2001;286(16):1977-1984.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Misinterpretation of Electrocardiograms and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activations
Andrew T. Yan, Raymond T. Yan, and Shaun G. Goodman
JAMA. 2008;299(16):1897.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Misinterpretation of Electrocardiograms and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activations—Reply
Frederick A. Masoudi
JAMA. 2008;299(16):1898.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.