Key result
Continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring methodology is described for the COMPARE study to assess transient myocardial ischemia in patients with suspected ACS, with no clinical results reported.
Why the study?
Does early invasive PCI/stent compared to conservative management affect the frequency and clinical consequences of transient myocardial ischemia in patients with NSTEMI/UA?
Does early invasive PCI/stent compared to conservative management affect the frequency and clinical consequences of transient myocardial ischemia in patients with NSTEMI/UA?
This paper describes the methodology for the COMPARE study, which uses continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring to assess transient myocardial ischemia in NSTEMI/UA patients undergoing invasive versus conservative management.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Facilitates ischemia detection in asymptomatic ACS patients; leaves open whether early invasive strategy alters outcomes versus conservative management in COMPARE.
Each year, an estimated 785,000 Americans will have a new coronary attack, or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The pathophysiology of ACS involves rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque; hence, treatment is aimed at plaque stabilization in order to prevent cellular death. However, there is considerable debate among clinicians, about which treatment pathway is best: early invasive using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI/stent) when indicated or a conservative approach (i.e., medication only with PCI/stent if recurrent symptoms occur). There are three types of ACS: ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina (UA). Among the three types, NSTEMI/UA is nearly four times as common as STEMI. Treatment decisions for NSTEMI/UA are based largely on symptoms and resting or exercise electrocardiograms (ECG). However, because of the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the atherosclerotic plaque, these methods often under detect myocardial ischemia because symptoms are unreliable, and/or continuous ECG monitoring was not utilized. Continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring, which is both inexpensive and non-invasive, can identify transient episodes of myocardial ischemia, a precursor to MI, even when asymptomatic. However, continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring is not usual hospital practice; rather, only two leads are typically monitored. Information obtained with 12-lead ECG monitoring might provide useful information for deciding the best ACS treatment. Purpose. Therefore, using 12-lead ECG monitoring, the COMPARE Study (electroCardiographic evaluatiOn of ischeMia comParing invAsive to phaRmacological trEatment) was designed to assess the frequency and clinical consequences of transient myocardial ischemia, in patients with NSTEMI/UA treated with either early invasive PCI/stent or those managed conservatively (medications or PCI/stent following recurrent symptoms). The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the methodology used in the COMPARE Study. Method. Permission to proceed with this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the hospital and the university. Research nurses identify hospitalized patients from the emergency department and telemetry unit with suspected ACS. Once consented, a 12-lead ECG Holter monitor is applied, and remains in place during the patient's entire hospital stay. Patients are also maintained on the routine bedside ECG monitoring system per hospital protocol. Off-line ECG analysis is done using sophisticated software and careful human oversight.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pelter et al. (2012) studied Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTEMI/UA). Continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring vs. Routine bedside ECG monitoring was evaluated on Frequency and clinical consequences of transient myocardial ischemia. Continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring methodology is described for the COMPARE study to assess transient myocardial ischemia in patients with suspected ACS, with no clinical results reported.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: