Comparison of continuous ST-segment recovery analysis with methods using static electrocardiograms for noninvasive patency assessment during acute myocardial infarction

Abstract Continuous ST-segment recovery analysis and 5 static methods using ST-segment comparison between a pre- and post-treatment electrocardiogram were compared for their ability to predict infarct-related artery patency in 82 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent angiography a median of 124 minutes after onset of thrombolytic treatment. Accuracy at the moment of angiography was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77% to 93%) for the continuous method, and 68% (CI 57% to 78%), 78% (CI 69% to 87%), 83% (CI 74% to 91%), 82% (CI 73% to 90%), and 80% (CI 71% to 89%) for the static methods. At the moment of angiography the most accurate static method and the continuous method agreed in patency assessment in 90% of the patients (CI 84% to 97%). Agreement was reduced to 83% (CI 75% to 91%) of patients when a patency assessment was performed earlier at 90 minutes after treatment onset, and was only 77% (CI 68% to 86%), at 60 minutes. Early disagreement was mainly seen when the continuous ST recording showed ST recovery from a delayed peak ST elevation after the pretreatment static electrocardiogram or when dynamic ST changes suggesting cyclic reperfusion occurred. Continuous ST-segment recovery analysis appears to be as accurate as the most accurate static methods. Continuously updated reference points appear to give important additional information when ST recovery follows a delayed peak ST elevation or when reelevation occurs, suggesting cyclic flow changes. Such findings appear to affect about half of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with intravenous thrombolysis, particularly early after administration of therapy.