Key result
A registry algorithm restricted to acute admissions with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction identified events following PCI with 82% sensitivity, 99% specificity, and 81% PPV.
Why the study?
Do registry-based algorithms accurately identify acute myocardial infarction in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention?
Population
5,719 patients enrolled in clinical drug-eluting stent studies at the Department of Cardiology, Aarhus…
Comparison
Algorithms to identify acute myocardial… vs End point committee adjudication of AMI
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 3 years
Authors
Loading...
May support registry-based post-PCI MI surveillance with high specificity; extends validation data but leaves generalizability open.
Observational (n=5,719)
No
Do registry-based algorithms accurately identify acute myocardial infarction in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention?
Registry-based algorithms can identify acute myocardial infarction following PCI with moderate-to-high validity, though the optimal algorithm depends on whether sensitivity or positive predictive value is prioritized.
Egholm et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Ischemic heart disease following percutaneous coronary intervention (n=5,719). Registry-based algorithms for AMI detection vs. End point committee adjudication (reference standard) was evaluated on Acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A registry algorithm restricted to acute admissions with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction identified events following PCI with 82% sensitivity, 99% specificity, and 81% PPV.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: