Key result
ECG detects previous MI with ~79% accuracy vs CMR but fails to define infarct location.
Why the study?
Studies validating ECG against CMR as a reference standard to detect and locate prior MI in chronic coronary disease are limited.
Does electrocardiogram accurately detect and locate previous myocardial infarction compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspected or known chronic coronary disease?
Case-Control (n=352)
Single-blind
Yes
Does electrocardiogram accurately detect and locate previous myocardial infarction compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspected or known chronic coronary disease?
ECG is highly specific but only moderately sensitive for detecting previous myocardial infarction compared to CMR, and is inaccurate for determining the exact infarct location.
ECG's moderate sensitivity and poor localization limit sole reliance for prior MI; leaves open prospective validation of refined ECG criteria versus CMR.
Background In the assessment of ischemic heart disease, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered the gold standard for detecting and locating myocardial infarction (MI), but electrocardiogram (ECG) is less expensive and more widely available. Recognition of MI on ECG outside the acute phase is challenging; Q waves are absent in a significant proportion of patients and may reduce or disappear over time. Although ECG is widely used in the initial assessment of previous infarction, studies to validate ECG using CMR as a reference in the context of chronic coronary disease are limited. Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ECG in detecting and locating CMR-defined MI. Methods This study included 352 individuals who underwent CMR and ECG, 241 patients with previous MI confirmed by CMR and 111 controls with normal CMR. Their ECG tracings were analyzed by 2 observers, who were blinded to the CMR, for detection and location of MI following to the Fourth Brazilian Society of Cardiology Guidelines on the Analysis and Issuance of Electrocardiographic Reports. The significance level adopted was 5% (p < 0.05). Results ECG showed good performance for detecting previous MI, with sensitivity of 69.3% (64.5% to 74.1%), specificity of 99.1% (98.1% to 100%), and accuracy of 78.7% (74.4% to 83.0%). However, in locating MI in accordance with CMR, its accuracy was unsatisfactory. Conclusions When compared to CMR, ECG was shown to be a method with good accuracy for detecting previous MI, but not for defining its location.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guerra et al. (2025) conducted a case-control in Previous Myocardial Infarction (n=352). Electrocardiogram (ECG) vs. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) was evaluated on Accuracy for detecting previous myocardial infarction (95% CI 74.4-83.0). Electrocardiogram demonstrated an accuracy of 78.7% for detecting previous myocardial infarction compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance, but was unsatisfactory for defining infarct location.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: