Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical Cardiology logoLink to Clinical Cardiology
. 2007 Aug 6;30(8):381–390. doi: 10.1002/clc.20088

Thoughts About the Abnormalities in the Electrocardiogram of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction with Emphasis on a more Accurate Method of Interpreting ST‐segment Displacement: Part I

J Willis Hurst 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6653334  PMID: 17680618

Abstract

The QRS, S‐T, and T wave abnormalities produced by the usual myocardial infarction are discussed in Part I of this manuscript.

The recent guidelines supplied by the ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines divide primary S‐T segment displacement into S‐T segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non S‐T segment elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Accordingly, the electrophysiologic mechanisms responsible for epicardial and subendocardial injury that produce the S‐T segment abnormalities are discussed in this manuscript. In this regard, the author suggests that the Grant method of interpreting the 12 lead electrocardiogram, which uses basic principles and vector concepts, is a more accurate method of identifying epicardial injury and subendocardial injury than memorizing the rules provided by the guidelines. An electrocardiogram is shown to illustrate this point. In Addition, the author expresses his personal view that labeling an electrocardiogram as NSTEMI but not stating what is actually present in the tracing is a cumbersome method of communication. The author believes it is better communication to state what is present rather than to state what is not present. At best, the result of both assessments should be stated in the interpretation.

Part II of the manuscript is devoted to a discussion as to why treatment with thrombolytic or percutaneous coronary intervention is more effective in patients whose electrocardiograms reveal epicardial injury than it is in patients whose electrocardiograms reveal subendocardial injury or no injury. Copyright © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: epicardial injury, subendocardial injury, electrocardiographic signs of infarction, errors interpreting the electrocardiogram, S‐T segment displacement

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.0 MB).

References

  • 1. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, Green LA, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with S‐T‐elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines on the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44: 671–719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). Available at HTTP://www.acc.org/clinical /guidelines/unstable/unstable.pdf. [Accessed 12th March 2004].
  • 3. Appleby P, Baigent C, Collins R, Flather M, Parish S, Peto R, et al.: Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction…. The Lancet 1994; 343: 8893, Research Library pg. 311. [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Grant RP. Clinical Electrocardiography: The Spatial Vector Approach, pp 157–165. New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Menown IBA, MacKenzie G, Adgey AAJ: Optimizing the initial 12‐lead electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 275–283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Hurst JW: Abnormalities of the S‐T segment‐Part 1. Clin Cardiol 1997; 20: 511–520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Hurst JW: Abnormalities of the S‐T segment‐Part 11. Clin Cardiol 1997; 20: 595–600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Grant RP: Clinical Electrocardiography: The Spatial Vector Approach, pp 104–105. New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Grant RP: Clinical Electrocardiography: The Spatial Vector Approach, pp 102–103. New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Grant RP: Clinical Electrocardiography: The Spatial Vector Approach, pp 101–102. New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Holland RP, Brooks H: TQ‐ST segment mapping: critical review and analysis of current concepts. Am J Cardiol 1977; 40: 110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Ibanwz B, Benezet‐Mazuccos J: Takotsubo syndrome: a bayesian approach to interpreting its pathogenesis. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81(6): 732–734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Grant RP: Clinical Electrocardiography: The Spatial Vector Approach, pp 150 New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Hurst JW: Thoughts about the ventricular gradient and its current clinical use (Part 1 of II). Clin Cardiol 2005; 28: 175–180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Hurst JW: Thoughts about the ventricular gradient and its current clinical use (Part II of II). Clin Cardiol 2005; 28: 219–224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Prineas RJ, Crow RS, Blackburn H: The Minnesota Code Manual of Electrocardiographic Findings: Standards and Procedures for Measurement and Classification. Boston: John Wright, PSG Inc, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Grant RP: Clinical Electrocardiography: The Spatial Vector Approach, pp 1–218. New York: McGraw‐Hill Book Company, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Hurst JW: Interpreting Electrocardiogram Using Basic Principles and Vector Concepts, pp 1–317. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Hurst JW: Ventricular Electrocardiography, pp 1.2–13.36. New York: Gower Medical Publishing, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Wung S‐F, Kahn DY: A quantitative evaluation of ST‐segment changes on the 18‐lead electrocardiogram during acute coronary occlusions. J Electrocardiol 2006; 39: 275–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Celik T, Yuksel UC, Kursaklioglu H, Iyisoy A, Kose S, et al.: Precordial ST‐segment elevation in acute occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery. J Electrocardiol 2006; 39: 301–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Porter A, Herz I, Strasberg B: Isolated right ventricular infarction presenting as anterior wall myocardial infarction on electrocardiography. Clin Cardiol 1997; 20: 971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Hurst JW: Comments about the electrocardiographic signs of right ventricular infarction. Clin Cardiol 1998; 21: 289–291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Hurst JW: Interpreting Electrocardiogram Using Basic Principles and Vector Concepts, pp 169–175. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Jim MH, Siu CW, Chan AOO, Chan RHW, Lee SWL, et al: Prognostic implications of PR‐segment depression in inferior leads in acute inferior myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 2006; 29: 363–368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Cardiology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES