PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 1, 1988Heart94 citationsOpen Access

High gain signal averaged electrocardiogram combined with 24 hour monitoring in patients early after myocardial infarction for bedside prediction of arrhythmic events.

TCT CrippsEBEd BennettACA. John Camm

Structured PICO

Does the combination of high gain signal averaged electrocardiogram and 24 hour monitoring improve the prediction of arrhythmic events in patients early after myocardial infarction?

P
Population
159 patients in the first week after myocardial infarction
I
Intervention
High gain, signal averaged electrocardiogram combined with 24 hour electrocardiographic monitoring
C
Comparator
High gain signal averaged electrocardiogram alone, 24 hour electrocardiographic monitoring alone, or clinical information collected during admission
O
Outcome
Arrhythmic eventshard clinical

The combination of high gain signal averaged ECG and 24-hour monitoring early after MI provides a rapid, non-invasive method to accurately identify patients at high risk for arrhythmic events.

Abstract

The value of the high gain, signal averaged electrocardiogram combined with 24 hour electrocardiographic monitoring in the prediction of arrhythmic events was assessed in 159 patients in the first week after myocardial infarction. Eleven patients (7%) suffered arrhythmic events during a mean (SD) of 12 (6) months of follow up (range 2-22, median 13 months). The combination of high gain, signal averaged electrocardiography and 24 hour electrocardiographic monitoring was more accurate than either technique alone or than clinical information collected during admission in predicting these events. The combination identified a high risk group of 13 (8%) patients, with an arrhythmic event rate of 62% and a low risk group with an event rate of 2%. The combination of high gain, signal averaged electrocardiography and 24 hour electrocardiographic monitoring in the first week after myocardial infarction provides a rapid, cheap, and non-invasive bedside method for the prediction of arrhythmias.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cripps et al. (1988) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a170dff25571367076bee57https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.60.3.181
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

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

  1. 1Prediction of Arrhythmic Events After Acute Myocardial Infarction Using Two Methods for Late Potentials Recording1993 · 6 citations
  2. 2Prognostic Importance of Myocardial Ischemia Detected by Ambulatory Monitoring Early after Acute Myocardial Infarction1996 · 116 citations
  3. 3Prediction of Arrhythmic Events after Myocardial Infarction Based on Signal‐Averaged Electrocardiogram and Ejection Fraction2008 · 10 citations
  4. 4Late potentials detected after myocardial infarction: natural history and prognostic significance.1986 · 279 citations
  5. 5Evaluation of ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring of patients after high-risk acute coronary syndrome: the MONITOR ACS-Epic 13 randomized trial2025 · 2 citations