Abstract
Background: The electrocardiogram (ECG) is valuable for the identification of prior myocardial infarction (MI) in individuals participating in epidemiologic studies or undergoing screening examinations. Although the Minnesota Code, a set of criteria for the interpretation of ECGs in such situations, is commonly used to identify MI in these settings, its accuracy is incompletely understood.
Hypothesis: We sought to test the accuracy of the Minnesota Code Q and QS criteria for MI against a new standard of reference, the presence of a perfusion defect on a resting myocardial scintigraphic image.
Methods: The resting myocardial scintigrams of all patients studied in our nuclear cardiology laboratory during 7 consecutive months were screened for the presence of perfusion defects. For each patient with such a defect, two individuals examined on the same day, who had no perfusion defect, were selected as controls. Electrocardiograms recorded within 30 days of the scintigraphy were read blindly by two of the authors using the Minnesota Code criteria for Q or QS waves indicative of MI.
Results: For 214 patients selected on the basis of their scintigraphic findings, a satisfactory ECG recorded within a month of the scintigraphy was also available. The overall sensitivity of the Q or QS criteria was 0.58 and the specificity was 0.75. As might be expected when only the most stringent criteria were applied, sensitivity was least and the specificity best.
Conclusions: As in previous studies, in which necropsy material served as the standard of reference, sensitivity of the Q and QS criteria contained in the Minnesota Code is relatively modest and specificity is reasonable but not outstanding.
Keywords: electrocardiography, myocardial infarction, myocardial scintigraphy
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (89.1 KB).
References
- 1. Uusitupa M, Pyorala K, Raunio H, Rissanen V, Lampainen E: Sensitivity and specificity of the Minnesota Code Q‐QS abnormalities in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction verified at autopsy. Am Heart J 1983; 106: 753–757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Pahlm O, Haisty WK Jr, Wagner NB, Pope JE, Wagner GS: Specificity and sensitivity of QRS criteria for diagnosis of single and multiple myocardial infarcts. Am J Cardiol 1991; 68: 1300–1304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Blackburn H, Keys A, Simonson E, Rautaharju P, Punsar S: The electrocardiogram in population studies: A classification system. Circulation 1960; 21: 1160–1175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Baumgartner H, Porenta G, Lau Y‐K, Wutte M, Klaar U, Mehrabi M, Siegel RJ, Czernin J, Lauger G, Sochor H, Schelbert H, Fishbein MC, Maurer G: Assessment of myocardial viability by dobutamine echocardiography, positron emission tomography and thallium‐201 SPECT—Comparison with histopathology in explanted hearts. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 1701–1708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Shirani J, Lee J, Quigg R, Pick R, Bacharach SL, Dilsizian V: Relation of thallium uptake to morphologic features of chronic ischemic heart disease: Evidence for myocardial remodeling in noninfarcted myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38: 84–90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Karnegis JN, Matts J, Tuna N, for the POSCH Group : Development and evolution of electrocardiographic Minnesota Q‐QS codes in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1985; 110: 452–459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Perrone‐Filardi P, Pace L, Prastaro M, Squame F, Betocchi S, Soricelli A, Piscione F, Indolfi C, Crisci T, Salvatore M, Chiariello M: Assessment of myocardial viability in patients with chronic coronary artery disease— Rest—4‐hour—24‐hour 201Tl tomography versus dobutamine echocardiography. Circulation 1996; 9: 2712–2719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Iskandrian A, Hakki A‐H, Kane SA, Goel IP, Mundth ED, Hakki A‐H, Segal BL: Rest and redistribution thallium‐201 myocardial scintigraphy to predict improvement in left ventricular function after coronary arterial bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 1983; 51: 1312–1316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]