Key result
AMI evaluation in non-cardiac critical illness is linked to ~60% fewer missed diagnoses.
Why the study?
The diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in ICU patients admitted for non-cardiac disease is challenging and may be frequently missed, especially in septic patients.
What is the rate of missed diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in non-cardiac critically ill patients?
Observational (n=600)
No
What is the rate of missed diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in non-cardiac critically ill patients?
Post-mortem examinations reveal a significant rate of missed acute myocardial infarction diagnoses in non-cardiac critically ill patients, particularly those with sepsis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change practice for AMI evaluation in non-cardiac critically ill; hypothesis-generating and needs prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: In patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for non cardiac disease, the diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes can be challenging. The aim of the study was to define the rate of discrepancies concerning the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and to evaluate the presence of risk factors that could be helpful in identifying patients at higher risk of missed diagnosis. METHODS: We compared clinical and autopsy records of 600 critically ill patients who died in our ICU in a 10-years period. We identified patients in whom acute myocardial infarction was reported as the cause of death on the clinical records or was discovered only at post-mortem examination. These subjects were subsequently divided into two Groups: patients in Group 1 underwent diagnostic evaluation for acute myocardial infarction whereas those in Group 2 were not investigated for. RESULTS: In Group 1, a definite clinical diagnosis was reached in 11 patients (14,7%) but remained undetermined in 37 patients (48%). The diagnosis was totally missed in 8 patients in Group 1 (10,6%) and in 20 patients of Group 2 (26,6%). The diagnostic discrepancy was higher in septic patients, in whom the correct diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction was established at a rate lower than 50% in respect to non-septic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience strengthens the role of post-mortem examination as a source of feed-back of the overall diagnostic and therapeutic approach especially in septic patients, where the diagnostic error is more frequent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berlot et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction in non-cardiac critically ill patients (n=600). Diagnostic evaluation for acute myocardial infarction vs. No diagnostic evaluation was evaluated on Missed diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Diagnostic evaluation for acute myocardial infarction in non-cardiac critically ill patients was associated with a missed diagnosis rate of 10.6%, compared to 26.6% without investigation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: