Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Sep;89(9):998-1002.
doi: 10.1136/heart.89.9.998.

Body surface mapping improves early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients with chest pain and left bundle branch block

Affiliations

Body surface mapping improves early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients with chest pain and left bundle branch block

S J Maynard et al. Heart. 2003 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: To test prospectively depolarisation and repolarisation body surface maps (BSMs) for mirror image reversal, which is less susceptible to artefact, in patients with acute ischaemic-type chest pain, and to compare these BSM criteria with previously published 12 lead ECG criteria.

Methods: An 80 lead portable BSM system was used to map patients presenting with acute ischaemic-type chest pain and a 12 lead ECG with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was defined by serial cardiac enzymes. Each 12 lead ECG was assessed by the criteria of Sgarbossa et al and Hands et al for diagnosis of AMI. Depolarisation and repolarisation BSMs were assessed for loss of mirror image reversal of QRS with ST-T isointegral map patterns and a change in vector angle from QRS to ST-T outside 180+/-15 degrees -findings typically seen in LBBB with AMI.

Results: Of 56 patients with chest pain and LBBB, 18 had enzymatically confirmed AMI. Patients with loss of BSM image reversal were significantly more likely to have AMI (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 16.4, p = 0.007). Loss of BSM image reversal was significantly more sensitive (67%) for AMI than either 12 lead ECG method (17%, 33%) albeit with some loss in specificity (BSM 71%, 12 lead ECG 87%, 97%). Patients with AMI compared with those without AMI had a greater mean change in vector angle outside the normal range (180+/-15 degrees ), particularly between QRS isointegral and ST60 isopotential (the potential 60 ms after the J point at each electrode site) BSMs (19 degrees v 9 degrees, p = 0.038). Loss of image reversal and QRS-ST60 vector change outside 180+/-15 degrees had 61% sensitivity and 82% specificity for AMI (odds ratio 7.0, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 24.4, p = 0.001).

Conclusions: BSM compared with the 12 lead ECG improved the early diagnosis of AMI in the presence of LBBB.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) QRS and ST-T isointegral maps from a patient with left bundle branch block without acute myocardial infarction. The change in vector angle (θ) between QRS and ST-T is within normal limits at 194°. There is also normal image reversal—that is, QRSmin and ST-Tmax lie within one electrode space of each other, as do QRSmax and ST-Tmin. (B) QRS and ST-T isointegral maps from a patient with left bundle branch block with acute myocardial infarction. The change in vector angle (θ) between QRS and ST-T is outside normal limits at 145°. There is loss of image reversal—that is, although QRSmin and ST-Tmax are located at the same electrode site, QRSmax and ST-Tmin are located apart by >1 electrode space both horizontally (x) and vertically (y). Max, maximum; min, minimum; R, right; L, left. Minimum and maximum loci are shown by white circles.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shlipak MG, Lyons WL, Go AS, et al. Should the electrocardiogram be used to guide therapy for patients with left bundle branch block and suspected myocardial infarction? JAMA 1999;281:714–9. - PubMed
    1. Edhouse JA, Sakr M, Angus J, et al. Suspected myocardial infarction and left bundle branch block: electrocardiographic indicators of acute ischemia. J Accid Emerg Med 1999;16:331–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Go AS, Barron HV, Rundle AC, et al. Bundle-branch block and in-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction. National registry of myocardial infarction 2 investigators. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:690–7. - PubMed
    1. Newby KH, Pisano E, Krucoff MW, et al. Incidence and clinical relevance of the occurrence of bundle branch block in patients treated with thrombolytic therapy. Circulation 1996;94:2424–8. - PubMed
    1. Sgarbossa EB, Pinski SL, Barbagelata A, et al. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of evolving acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block. GUSTO-1 (global utilization of streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator for occluded coronary arteries) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;334:481–7. - PubMed

Publication types