Studies indicate that symptoms labeled as “atypical” are more common in women evaluated for myocardial infarction (MI) and may contribute to the lower likelihood of a diagnosis and delayed treatment and result in poorer outcomes compared with men with MI. Atypical pain is frequently defined as epigastric or back pain or pain that is described as burning, stabbing, or characteristic of indigestion. Typical symptoms usually include chest, arm, or jaw pain described as dull, heavy, tight, or crushing. In a recent article published in the Journal of the American Heart Association ( JAHA ), Ferry and colleagues addressed presenting symptoms in men and women diagnosed with MI and reported that typical symptoms in women were more predictive of a diagnosis of MI than for men. A critical question is, are there really typical or atypical symptoms, and if so, who is the reference group? We propose that researchers and clinicians either discontinue using the terms typical and atypical or provide the reference group to which the terms apply (eg, men versus women). We believe it is past time to standardize the symptom assessment for MI so that proper and rapid diagnostic testing can be undertaken; however, we cannot standardize the symptom experience. When we do this, we are at risk of having study results, such as those of Ferry and colleagues, that vary from prior evidence and could lead to what the authors hope to avoid: disadvantaging women in receiving expeditious diagnostic testing and treatment for acute coronary syndrome.

Although the American Heart Association recommends a prehospital electrocardiogram (ECG) be recorded for all patients who access the emergency medical system with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), widespread use of prehospital ECG has not been achieved in the United States. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in a predominately rural county in northern California to test a simple strategy for acquiring and transmitting prehospital ECGs that involved minimal paramedic training and decision making. A 12-lead ECG was synthesized from 5 electrodes and continuous ST-segment monitoring was performed with ST-event ECGs automatically transmitted to the destination hospital emergency department. Patients randomized to the experimental group had their ECGs printed out in the emergency department with an audible voice alarm, whereas control patients had an ECG after hospital arrival, as was the standard of care in the county. The result was that nearly 3/4 (74%) of 4,219 patients with symptoms of ACS over the 4-year study enrollment period had a prehospital ECG. Mean time from 911 call to first ECG was 20 minutes in those with a prehospital ECG versus 79 minutes in those without a prehospital ECG (p <0.0001). Mean paramedic scene time in patients with a prehospital ECG was just 2 minutes longer than in those without a prehospital ECG (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 3.6, p <0.001). Patients with non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris had a faster time to first intravenous drug and there was a suggested trend for a faster door-to-balloon time and lower risk of mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. In conclusion, increased paramedic use of prehospital ECGs and decreased hospital treatment times for ACS are feasible with a simple approach tailored to characteristics of a local geographic region.

Objective To assess the validity of three different computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation algorithms in correctly identifying STEMI patients in the prehospital environment who require emergent cardiac intervention. Methods This retrospective study validated three diagnostic algorithms (AG) against the presence of a culprit coronary artery upon cardiac catheterization. Two patient groups were enrolled in this study: those with verified prehospital ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) activation (cases) and those with a prehospital impression of chest pain due to ACS (controls). Results There were 500 records analyzed resulting in a case group with 151 patients and a control group with 349 patients. Sensitivities differed between AGs (AG1 = 0.69 vs AG2 = 0.68 vs AG3 = 0.62), with statistical differences in sensitivity found when comparing AG1 to AG3 and AG1 to AG2. Specificities also differed between AGs (AG1 = 0.89 vs AG2 = 0.91 vs AG3 = 0.95), with AG1 and AG2 significantly less specific than AG3. Conclusions STEMI diagnostic algorithms vary in regards to their validity in identifying patients with culprit artery lesions. This suggests that systems could apply more sensitive or specific algorithms depending on the needs in their community.

Background: A decision to delay seeking treatment for symptoms of acute coronary syndrome increases the risk of serious complications, disability, and death. Aims: The purpose of this study was to determine if there was an association between gradual vs abrupt symptom onset and prehospital delay for patients with acute coronary syndrome and to examine the relationship between activities at symptom onset and gradual vs abrupt symptom onset. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a large prospective multi-center study. Altogether, 474 patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome were included in the study. Symptom characteristics, activity at symptom onset, and prehospital delay were measured with the ACS Patient Questionnaire. Results: Median prehospital delay time was four hours. Being uninsured (β=0.120, p=0.031) and having a gradual onset of symptoms (β=0.138, p=0.003) were associated with longer delay. A diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (β=−0.205, p=0.001) and arrival by ambulance (β=−0.317, p<0.001) were associated with shorter delay. Delay times were shorter for patients who experienced an abrupt vs gradual symptom onset (2.57 h vs 8 h, p<0.001). Among men with an abrupt onset of symptoms and a ST-elevation myocardial infarction diagnosis, 54% reported that symptoms were triggered by exertion ( p=0.046). Conclusion: Patients should be counselled that a gradual onset of symptoms for potential acute coronary syndrome is an emergency and that they should call 911. Men with ischemic heart disease or with multiple risk factors should be cautioned that symptom onset following exertion may represent acute coronary syndrome.

Objectives In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), we sought to: 1) describe arrhythmias during hospitalization, 2) explore the association between arrhythmias and patient outcomes, and 3) explore predictors of the occurrence of arrhythmias. Methods In a prospective sub-study of the IMMEDIATE AIM study, we analyzed electrocardiographic (ECG) data from 278 patients with ACS. On emergency department admission, a Holter recorder was attached for continuous 12-lead ECG monitoring. Results Approximately 22% of patients had more than 50 premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) per hour. Non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) occurred in 15% of patients. Very few patients (≤1%) had a malignant arrhythmia (sustained VT, asystole, torsade de pointes, or ventricular fibrillation). Only more than 50 PVCs/hour independently predicted an increased length of stay (p<.0001). No arrhythmias predicted mortality. Age greater than 65 years and a final diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction independently predicted more than 50 PVCs per hour (p=.0004). Conclusions Patients with ACS seem to have fewer serious arrhythmias today, which may have implications for the appropriate use of continuous ECG monitoring.