PACE-ECG IN PREVIOUS MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION: AN UNFINISHED STORY

Aim. The diagnosis of previous myocardial infarction (MI) is difficult in patients with pacemaker and usually further tests must be done to confirm the diagnosis. To overcome this difficulty five major ECG criteria have been proposed by authors: 1. Notching 0.04 second in the ascending limb of the S wave of leads V3,4 or 5 (Cabrera’s sign), 2. Notching of the upstroke of the R wave in leads I, aVL or V6 (Chapman’s sign), 3. Q wave >0.03 second in leads I, aVL or V6, 4. Notching of the first 0.04 second of the QRS complex in leads II, III, aVF, 5. Q wave >0.03 second in leads II, III, aVF. The aim of this study is to find the predictive value of the five major proposed criteria for MI in pacing ECG of patients with previous MI.

Material and methods. Twenty- three pacemaker patients with known MI (anterior 15, inferior 8) and 24 healthy pacemaker control patients; 17 female, 30 males, aged between 17-92 years with mean age of 59,5 ± 20 years, total 47 patients were studied. Documentation and localization of MI was based on history and confirmed by angiography and or scintigraphy.

Results. Sensitivity was lower in all parameters for prediction of any MI whereas specificity was higher and ODA was moderate. Cabrera’s and Chapman’s sign had moderate sensitivity (60%-60%) whereas high specificity (90%-90%) and ODA (81%-81%) for anterior MI. Sensitivity of Q wave in I, aVL or V6 was lower (47%) for anterior MI but specificity and ODA was higher 84% and 92% respectively.

Conclusion. In conclusion Cabrera’s and Chapman’s sign have a moderate sensitivity and higher specificity for recognising previous anterior MI in pacing patients.

1. Cabrera E, Friedland C. La onda de activacion ventricular en el bloqueo de rama izquierda con infarcto: un nuevo signo electrocardiographico. Arch Inst Cardiol Mex 1953;23:441.

2. Chapman MG, Pearce ML. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block. Circulation 1957;16:558.

3. Castellanos A, Zoble R, Procacci PM, et al. St-qR pattern: new sign for diagnosis of anterior myocardial infarction during RV pacing. Br Heart J 1973;35:1161.

4. Wackers F, Lie KI, Koster RM, et al. Assessment of the value of electrocardiographic signs for myocardial infarction in left bundle branch block. In: Wellens HJJ, Kulbertus HE, editors. What’s new in electrocardiography? The Hague7 Martinus Nijhoff; 1981. p. 37.

5. Horan LG, Flowers NC, Tolleson WJ, et al. The significance of diagnostic Q waves in the presence of bundle branch block. Chest 1970;58:214.

6. Kochiadakis GE, Kaleboubas MD, Igoumenidis NE, et al. Electrocardiographic appearance of old myocardial infarction in paced patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002 Jul;25 (7):1061–5.

7. Théraulaz D, Zimmermann M, Meiltz A, et al. Value of the 12-lead resting electrocardiogram for the diagnosis of previous myocardial infarction in paced patients. J Electrocardiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;40 (6):496–503.

8. Barold SS, Ong LS, Banner RL. Diagnosis of inferior wall myocardial infarction during right ventricular apical pacing. Chest 1976; 69:232–235.

9. Kindwall KE, Brown JP, Josephson ME. Predictive accuracy of criteria for chronic myocardial infarction in pacing-induced left bundle branch block. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:1255–1260.

10. Spodick DH. ECG diagnosis of MI in LBBB. Am Heart J 1989; 117:1409.

11. Hands ME, Cook EF, Stone PH, et al. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of myocardial infarction in the presence of complete left bundle branch block. Am Heart J 1988; 116:23–31.