Why the study?
Does persistent precordial ST segment depression predict worse clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients with acute inferior transmural myocardial infarction?
Does persistent precordial ST segment depression predict worse clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients with acute inferior transmural myocardial infarction?
Persistent precordial ST segment depression in acute inferior myocardial infarction is associated with larger infarct size, worse hemodynamics, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction.
Forty-three consecutive patients with acute inferior transmural myocardial infarction but no history or electrocardiographic evidence of prior myocardial infarction were evaluated prospectively to assess the clinical and prognostic importance of persistent precordial (V1-V4) ST segment depression. Patients were evaluated within 24 hr of admission by history, physical examination, cardiac enzyme levels, right heart catheterization, and radionuclide angiography; all were followed for 1 year. Ten of the 43 patients (group I) had persistent anterior precordial ST segment depression, defined as 1 mm or greater in one or more precordial leads (V1-V4) 24 hr after admission to the coronary care unit, and 33 patients (group II) did not. Clinical variables that differed between groups I and II, respectively, included mean age (67 +/- 9 [+/- 1 SD] vs 59 +/- 8 years; p less than .01), incidence of Killip class II to IV (100% vs 33%; p less than .001), and average peak creatine kinase concentration (2878 +/- 1139 vs 1511 +/- 1034 IU/liter; p less than .001). Hemodynamic differences between groups I and II included a higher pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (19 +/- 4 vs 11 +/- 5 mm Hg; p less than .001) and a lower cardiac index (2.0 +/- 0.5 vs 2.6 +/- 0.7 liters/min/m2; p less than .05). An evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction and wall motion index by radionuclide angiography showed that group I had a lower ejection fraction (44 +/- 11% vs 53 +/- 10%; p less than .05) and higher wall motion index (1.7 +/- 0.4 vs 1.4 +/- 0.3; p less than .05) compared with group II.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lembo et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: