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
. 2013 Mar 26:13:23.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-13-23.

Assessment tools for unrecognized myocardial infarction: a cross-sectional analysis of the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke population

Affiliations

Assessment tools for unrecognized myocardial infarction: a cross-sectional analysis of the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke population

Emily B Levitan et al. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Routine electrocardiograms (ECGs) are not recommended for asymptomatic patients because the potential harms are thought to outweigh any benefits. Assessment tools to identify high risk individuals may improve the harm versus benefit profile of screening ECGs. In particular, people with unrecognized myocardial infarction (UMI) have elevated risk for cardiovascular events and death.

Methods: Using logistic regression, we developed a basic assessment tool among 16,653 participants in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study using demographics, self-reported medical history, blood pressure, and body mass index and an expanded assessment tool using information on 51 potential variables. UMI was defined as electrocardiogram evidence of myocardial infarction without a self-reported history (n = 740).

Results: The basic assessment tool had a c-statistic of 0.638 (95% confidence interval 0.617-0.659) and included age, race, smoking status, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and self-reported history of transient ischemic attack, deep vein thrombosis, falls, diabetes, and hypertension. A predicted probability of UMI > 3% provided a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 30%. The expanded assessment tool had a c-statistic of 0.654 (95% confidence interval 0.634-0.674). Because of the poor performance of these assessment tools, external validation was not pursued.

Conclusions: Despite examining a large number of potential correlates of UMI, the assessment tools did not provide a high level of discrimination. These data suggest defining groups with high prevalence of UMI for targeted screening will be difficult.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristic curves for the unrecognized myocardial infarction assessment tools. Basic assessment tool (solid black line), expanded assessment tool (solid gray line), and Framingham risk score for coronary heart disease (dashed black line).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Test characteristics of the unrecognized myocardial infarction basic assessment tool. Sensitivity (solid black line), specificity (solid gray line), and sum of sensitivity and specificity (dashed black line).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. The Good Stewardship Working Group. The “Top 5” lists in primary care: meeting the responsibility of professionalism. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1385–1390. - PubMed
    1. Ammar KA, Kors JA, Yawn BP, Rodeheffer RJ. Defining unrecognized myocardial infarction: a call for standardized electrocardiographic diagnostic criteria. Am Heart J. 2004;148:277–284. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, Green LA, Hand M, Hochman JS, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lamas GA, Mullany CJ, Ornato JP, Pearle DL, Sloan MA, Smith SC Jr, Alpert JS, Anderson JL, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Gibbons RJ, Gregoratos G, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Jacobs AK. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction; a report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:E1–E211. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Howard VJ, Cushman M, Pulley L, Gomez CR, Go RC, Prineas RJ, Graham A, Moy CS, Howard G. The REasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study: objectives and design. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25:135–143. doi: 10.1159/000086678. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care. 1986;24:67–74. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198601000-00007. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms