Why the study?
ECG patterns suggestive of high-risk coronary anatomy indicate an urgent invasive approach in NSTE-ACS, prompting an assessment of their frequency and associated clinical characteristics.
High-risk ECG patterns are relatively frequent in NSTE-ACS patients with LMCA or LAD lesions, highlighting the importance of early recognition despite similar clinical characteristics to those without such patterns.
Highlights ECG markers in NSTE-ACS; leaves open their role in guiding urgent intervention without randomized confirmation.
Introduction: Electrocardiographic (ECG) patterns suggestive of high-risk coronary anatomy are indications for an urgent invasive approach in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Aim: To estimate the frequency of the observed phenomenon and assess the clinical characteristics of NSTE-ACS subjects associated with Wellens syndrome, the de Winter sign, or ST-segment depressions by ≥ 1 mm in ≥ 6 classic ECG leads with simultaneous ST-segment elevation in aVR and/or V1. Material and methods: Out of 207 pre-screened subjects diagnosed with NSTE-ACS, 64 patients (26 women and 38 men) with complete medical records (including admission ECG and coronary angiography during the index hospitalization), and significant culprit stenosis or occlusion of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) or the proximal/middle segment of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) entered the final analysis. Clinical characteristics of patients exhibiting any of the high-risk ECG patterns was compared to their counterparts with significant lesions in LMCA or proximal/middle LAD without any of the high-risk ECG patterns. Results: = 9). Clinical characteristics were comparable in 19 NSTE-ACS patients with the high-risk ECG patterns and their 45 counterparts. Conclusions: Because ECG patterns suggestive of high-risk coronary anatomy are relatively frequent in patients with NSTE-ACS and culprit lesions in LMCA or LAD, their early recognition is of clinical importance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gołąbek et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: