Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
July 1, 2009Annals of Noninvasive ElectrocardiologyOpen Access

Pooled data for anterior STEMI showed aVR STE predicts proximal LAD lesions with 47% sensitivity and 96% specificity; for inferior STEMI, aVR STD predicts circumflex lesions with 37% sensitivity and 86% specificity.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Does ST-segment deviation in lead aVR accurately identify the culprit coronary lesion in patients with acute myocardial infarction?

Population

Patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing 12-lead ECG and coronary arteriography across 16 studies.

Comparison

Assessment of ST-segment elevation or depression… vs Coronary arteriography as the reference standard…

Design

Systematic_review

Authors

JKJørgen Tobias KühlRBRonan M. G. Berg

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

aVR STE/STD supports culprit localization in anterior/inferior STEMI; confirms diagnostic utility via pooled metrics.

Structured PICO

Does ST-segment deviation in lead aVR accurately identify the culprit coronary lesion in patients with acute myocardial infarction?

P
Population
Patients with acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI, anterior STEMI, and inferior STEMI) undergoing 12-lead ECG and coronary arteriography across 16 studies.
I
Intervention
Assessment of ST-segment elevation (STE) or depression (STD) in ECG lead aVR.
C
Comparator
Coronary arteriography as the reference standard for culprit lesion identification.
O
Outcome
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for identifying the culprit lesion (left main stem, proximal LAD, or circumflex artery).surrogate

Evaluation of lead aVR on the 12-lead ECG provides valuable diagnostic information for localizing the culprit lesion in acute myocardial infarction, particularly for excluding left main stenosis and identifying proximal LAD occlusions.

Limitations

  • Heterogeneity among LMS studies preventing data pooling
  • Few articles explicitly mentioned double blinding
  • Variations in angiographic and electrocardiographic definitions across studies

Cite This Study

Kühl et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a75fd0732e180ccc08b75ddhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-474x.2009.00300.x
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Clinical Utility of aVR—The Neglected Electrocardiographic Lead2010 · 36 citations
  2. 2The Value of ECG Lead aVR in the Differential Diagnosis of Acute Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction2007 · 34 citations
  3. 3Prognostic Value of Lead aVR in Patients With a First Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction2003 · 176 citations
  4. 410.5937/mckg48-4068 = Diagnostic and prognostic utility of aVR lead in electrocardiogram2014 · 2 citations
  5. 5Predictive Value of ST-Segment Elevation in Lead aVR for Left Main and/or Three-Vessel Disease in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction2015 · 37 citations