Key result
Real-time AI ECG interpretation improves STEMI sensitivity to ~97% and reduces door-to-balloon time vs physicians alone.
Why the study?
Rapid, accurate ECG interpretation is essential for timely recognition of STEMI and initiation of reperfusion therapy in the ED, motivating an evaluation of real-time AI ECG interpretation integrated into routine ED workflows.
Does real-time AI-based ECG interpretation improve STEMI detection and reduce reperfusion times in adults presenting to the ED with cardiovascular symptoms?
Does real-time AI-based ECG interpretation improve STEMI detection and reduce reperfusion times in adults presenting to the ED with cardiovascular symptoms?
Real-time AI-ECG integration in the ED significantly improves STEMI detection sensitivity and shortens door-to-balloon times, though with a trade-off of lower specificity.
May warrant AI-ECG adoption in EDs despite specificity reduction; extends evidence but leaves open randomized confirmation of net benefit.
Background/Objectives: Rapid and accurate electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is essential for timely recognition of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and initiation of reperfusion therapy in the emergency department (ED). We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a real-time artificial intelligence (AI) ECG interpretation system and its pragmatic impact when integrated into routine ED workflows. Methods: This prospective, single-center pragmatic observational study was conducted in a regional emergency medical center ED in Busan, Republic of Korea (1 January–31 December 2024). Consecutive adults (≥18 years) undergoing 12-lead ECG for cardiovascular-related symptoms were enrolled (N = 1524). A predefined alternating-day protocol allocated visits to physician-only interpretation days (physician-days, N = 763) or AI output disclosure days (AI-days, N = 761). Diagnostic performance for STEMI was assessed using paired ECG-level comparisons between physician-alone interpretation and AI output against a blinded expert-panel reference standard; clinical impact outcomes included reperfusion-related time metrics, hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality. Results: Against the expert reference standard, AI showed higher STEMI sensitivity than physician-alone interpretation (96.7% vs. 68.3%; McNemar p = 0.027), while specificity was lower (75.9% vs. 84.5%; p = 0.018). In pragmatic day-level comparisons, door-to-balloon time was shorter on AI-days (40.0 ± 19.81 vs. 47.34 ± 21.90 min; p = 0.001), and time to PCI was significantly reduced among patients with atypical presentations (42.3 ± 18.21 vs. 57.1 ± 20.11 min; p = 0.013). Among admitted patients, hospital LOS was shorter on AI-days (13 ± 9.21 vs. 17 ± 10.31 days; p = 0.010), whereas in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between groups (17.0% vs. 16.77%; p = 0.191). Conclusions: Real-time AI-ECG integration in the ED was associated with improved STEMI detection sensitivity and shorter reperfusion-related time metrics, particularly in atypical presentations, and with reduced hospital LOS among admitted patients. Short-term mortality was comparable between groups. Further multicenter studies are warranted to confirm generalizability and to balance benefits against potential false-positive-related operational impacts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2026) studied this question. Real-time AI ECG interpretation improved STEMI sensitivity (96.7% vs. 68.3%) and reduced door-to-balloon time (40.0 vs. 47.3 min) compared to physician-alone interpretation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: