Posterior Occlusion Myocardial Infarctions and STDmaxV1-4

Background: Not all occlusion myocardial infarctions (OMIs) present with classic ST-segment elevation (We have covered this on REBEL EM Before HERE, HERE, and HERE). OMIs of the “posterior” and “lateral” walls are the most commonly missed, with >50% of left circumflex occlusions (Posterior and lateral walls suppled by the circumflex artery)not receiving emergent reperfusion. These misses occur because isolated posterior OMIs do not result in classic ST-elevation ECG changes. Instead, posterior OMI results in ST depression which is maximal in V1 to V4 (alternatively, ST-depression of subendocardial ischemia is maximal in V5 to V6). While the above findings are well-established, it’s unclear how accurately they predict OMI and the need for cardiac catheterization.

Paper: Meyers HP et al. Ischemic ST-Segment Depression Maximal in V1-V4 (Versus V5-V6) of Any Amplitude Is Specific for Occlusion Myocardial Infarction (Versus Nonocclusive Ischemia. J Am Heart Assoc 2021. PMID: 34775811 

Clinical Question: In a group of patients at high-risk for acute coronary syndrome in the ED, is precordial ischemic ST-segment depression maximal in V1 to V4 specific for occlusion myocardial infarction?

What They Did:

  • Planned retrospective substudy of the Diagnosis of Occlusion MI and Reperfusion by Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram in Acute Thrombotic Occlusion database
  • The database is a 2-site collaboration designed to study ECG findings in OMI
  • Any ST-depression maximal in V1 to V4 refers to any ST-depression of any magnitude (Even <0.5mm) that is maximal in V1 to V4 in any context (i.e. RBBB)

Outcomes:

  • Primary: Presence of OMI (Specificity of suspected ischemic STDmaxV1-4 for OMI)
    • Confirmed OMI on cardiac catheterization defined as an acute culprit lesion with TIMI 0 to 2 flow
    • Presumed OMI with significant cardiac outcome defined as any of the following:
      • Acute but nonocclusive (TIMI >2) culprit lesion with highly elevated cardiac troponin T ≥1.0ng/mL or Troponin I ≥10ng/mL
      • If no angiography, then highly elevated cardiac troponin and a new or presumed new regional wall motion abnormality on echocardiography
      • ECG positive for STEMI with death before attempted emergent catheterization
    • TIMI 0 to 1 culprit lesions

Inclusion:

  • All urgent and emergent left heart catheterizations during 1 year from 2 institutions
  • At Stony Brook cases were added from a prospective cohort of ED patients who were admitted to the cardiology service with suspected ACS during a 6-month time period
  • Additional controls were added from Hennepin Healthcare by searching the Use of TROPonin in Acute coronary syndromes (UTROPIA) database with patients without OMI but with STE, STD, or T-wave inversion

Exclusion:

  • No ECGs in the electronic medical record
  • Insufficient retrospective information available to determine the primary outcome

Results:

  • 808 patients with 3421 ECGs
    • Final Diagnosis of Acute MI: 265
      • 265 met criteria for OMI
      • Only 108 (41%) met STEMI criteria at any time
    • Median time from presentation to cardiac catheterization = 75min

  • Total of 99 OMIs Detected by Suspected Ischemic STDmaxV1-4
    • 47 (47%) had accompanying STEMI criteria in other locations
    • Culprit lesions included:
      • RCA: 53
      • LCx: 32
      • PDA: 7
      • Smaller Branches (OM1, OM2, Ramus intermedius, and left posterolateral: 30
      • Other vessels: 10
    • False Positives (Patients With Suspected Ischemic STDmaxV1-4 But Without OMI):
      • 13 patients had STDmaxV1-4 but did not meet the definition of OMI
      • All 13 underwent angiogram
      • 7 had culprit lesions
        • Proximal LAD: 2
        • Mid Cx: 1
        • Middle RCA: 1
        • 2nd OM: 2
        • 3rd Diagonal: 1
      • 6 required PCI
      • 1 died during index visit
    • Patients with STEMI(+) OMI and STDmaxV1-4 vs STEMI(-) OMI with STDmaxV1-4:
      • 99 patients with OMI with suspected ischemic STDmaxV1-4
      • 47 had concomitant STEMI criteria (STEMI(+) OMI)
      • 52 remaining (20% of all 265 OMIs) did not (STEMI(-) OMI)
        • These patients were completely missed by STEMI criteria but correctly identified by suspected ischemic STDmaxV1-4
      • Suspected Ischemic STD Borderline/Equal Between V4 and V5
        • 7 patients
        • All 7 underwent angiography
          • 5 had culprit lesions (All LCx)
          • 4 had OMI
          • 3 received PCI

Strengths:

  • ECGs were interpreted by two ED physicians blinded to all patient information except age and sex
  • Interpreters could not go back and change an interpretation once entered, as happens in real time in the ED
  • All 108 consecutive OMI cases from the prospective cohort were reviewed for STEMI criteria by a cardiologist blinded to outcome and study goals

Limitations:

  • Insufficient resources to perform a prospective, consecutive cohort study and findings may not apply to undifferentiated ED patients without ACS strongly suspected
  • Retrospective study performed at only 2 centers
  • Only 8 patients had posterior leads performed and recorded
  • 2 expert ECG interpreters reviewed all the ECGs. ECG interpretation is subjective and not all ED physicians may have this level of experience and therefore limits external validity of these findings
  • Different criteria to establish final diagnosis of AMI at the different hospitals
  • Patient selection process was convoluted which could lead to some bias in patient selection

Discussion:

  • I have placed all the specific results above for completeness of my review, but quite frankly it is a lot of math to get through. So here is the gist of what the results above show:
    • Any STDmaxV1-4 is 92% specific for OMI among ED patients with ACS
    • This number is increased to 97% for suspected ischemic STDmaxV1-4 (STDmaxV1–4 that could not be explained by a nonischemic cause was classified as primary STD, not secondary to an identifiable nonischemic source, and referred to as “suspected ischemic STDmaxV1–4.”)
    • The positive likelihood ratio in any patient with STDmaxV1-4 was ≈5. This is only a fair value, and most likely due to the very low sensitivity.  The absence of this finding doesn’t rule out OMI
    • Among the 99 patients with OMI and STDmaxV1-4, the 52 (53%) lacking STEMI criteria had similarly high peak troponin levels but significantly lower chance of getting emergent heart catheterization within 90minutes of presentation
    • STDmaxV1-4 is a single ECG finding designed only to detect the posterior component of an OMI
    • STDmaxV1-4 not secondary to an abnormal QRS (i.e. RBBB) is an accurate marker of posterior OMI)
    • STDmaxV5-6 is a manifestation of subendocardial ischemia:
      • Supply demand mismatch
      • ACS involving LM, LAD, or triple vessel disease
      • Only 28% of patients with suspected ischemic STDmaxV5-6 had OMI
    • Most STDmaxV1-4 will have concomitant subtle OMI findings in the inferior and/or lateral leads
      • Even <1.0mm of STDmaxV1-4 is specific for OMI BUT there were no patients who had this and no other findings of OMI in other areas of the ECG

Author Conclusion: “Among patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome, the specificity of ischemic STDmaxV1-4 was 97% for OMI and 96^ for OMI requiring percutaneous coronary intervention.   STEMI criteria missed half of OMIs detected by STDmaxV1-4.  Ischemic STDmaxV1-V4 in acute coronary syndrome should be considered OMI until proven otherwise.”

Clinical Take Home Point: In patients with symptoms suggestive of ACS in the ED, the specificity of STDmaxV1-4 was 97% for the diagnosis of posterior OMI and 96% for posterior OMI requiring PCI.  This finding of STDmaxV1-4 is both highly accurate and sufficient without the need for routine posterior leads.  Until further data become available, in any patient with suspected ACS and ischemic STD maximal in V1 – V4, these findings should be attributed to OMI until proven otherwise.

References:

  1. Meyers HP et al. Ischemic ST-Segment Depression Maximal in V1-V4 (Versus V5-V6) of Any Amplitude Is Specific for Occlusion Myocardial Infarction (Versus Nonocclusive Ischemia. J Am Heart Assoc 2021. PMID: 34775811

Post Peer Reviewed By: Anand Swaminathan, MD (Twitter: @EMSwami)

Cite this article as: Salim Rezaie, "Posterior Occlusion Myocardial Infarctions and STDmaxV1-4", REBEL EM blog, December 9, 2021. Available at: https://rebelem.com/posterior-occlusion-myocardial-infarctions-and-stdmaxv1-4/.
The following two tabs change content below.

Salim Rezaie

Emergency Physician at Greater San Antonio Emergency Physicians (GSEP)
Creator & Founder of REBEL EM

Like this article?

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on Linkdin
Share on email
Share via Email

Want to support rebelem?

Sponsored

0