Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GRAY, D.
Right arrow Articles by HAMPTON, J. R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by GRAY, D.
Right arrow Articles by HAMPTON, J. R
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1993 Oxford University Press

other

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Initial Working Diagnosis in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Thrombolysis

DAVID GRAY and JOHN R HAMPTON

Department of Medicine, Queen's Medical Centre, University Hospital Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK

Diagnosing acute myocardial infarction promptly allows all eligible patients to be considered for thrombolysis. Objective evidence from the first electrocardiograph may be inadequate and often the doctor must base his immediate management on limited information; an incorrect initial working diagnosis might deny some patients the benefits of thrombolysis or expose others to inappropriate, expensive and potentially harmful treatment. We were interested to find out how accurate our junior doctors were in their assessment of patients admitted with a suspected MI. All patients entered onto the Nottingham Heart Attack Register admitted with suspected acute MI from 1982 to 1986 and 1989 were identified. The initial working diagnosis on admission was obtained from the patient case record. A final diagnosis was assigned according to strictly defined criteria using ‘cardiac’ enzyme and electrocardiographic results. Sensitivity and specificity of the initial working diagnosis was calculated. Using the initial working diagnosis as a ‘screening’ test, we found that, while our doctors successfully identified patients with myocardial ischaemie, they were less good at recognizing acute MI-an admission diagnosis of ‘MI’ carried a sensitivity of 55% and specificity of 88%. This may explain the low utilization of thrombolysis in the Nottingham hospitals. In the first full year since thrombolysis became available, we estimated that we might have exposed 65 patients to the risks of thrombolysis inappropriately and we might have missed treating 244 patients.

Received 1 October 1992


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 HeartHome page
C Packham, D Gray, C Weston, A Large, P Silcocks, and J Hampton
Changing the diagnostic criteria for myocardial infarction in patients with a suspected heart attack affects the measurement of 30 day mortality but not long term survival
Heart, October 1, 2002; 88(4): 337 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
K W Clarke, D Gray, N A Keating, and J R Hampton
Do women with acute myocardial infarction receive the same treatment as men?
BMJ, September 3, 1994; 309(6954): 563 - 566.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.