Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Diagnosis

Official Journal of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM)

Editor-in-Chief: Graber, Mark L. / Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Argy, Nicolas / Epner, Paul L. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Singhal, Geeta / McDonald, Kathryn / Singh, Hardeep / Newman-Toker, David

Editorial Board: Basso , Daniela / Crock, Carmel / Croskerry, Pat / Dhaliwal, Gurpreet / Ely, John / Giannitsis, Evangelos / Katus, Hugo A. / Laposata, Michael / Lyratzopoulos, Yoryos / Maude, Jason / Sittig, Dean F. / Sonntag, Oswald / Zwaan, Laura


CiteScore 2018: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.359
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.424

Online
ISSN
2194-802X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Prehospital diagnosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Carsten Stengaard / Jacob Thorsted Sørensen / Martin Bøhme Rasmussen / Morten Thingemann Bøtker
  • Research and Development, Prehospital Emergency Medical Services, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Claus Kjær Pedersen / Christian Juhl Terkelsen
Published Online: 2016-11-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2016-0021

Abstract

Primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI) is the preferred treatment in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) if this can be performed in a timely manner. The 2012 ESC Guidelines on management of AMI in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation advice that PPCI should be performed within 120 min of first medical contact. Prehospital diagnosis of patients with STEMI is performed to save time and make PPCI available to the majority of patients. Although diagnosing patients with STEMI is usually easy, there are important pitfalls and patients with STEMI are missed on occasion. In addition, it is well know that patients without ST elevation may also have a high-risk cardiac condition. The 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation stress the importance of urgent CAG in patients with high-risk non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Unfortunately, these patients are difficult to diagnose in the acute phase and important time may be spend establishing the correct diagnosis. Prehospital biomarker measurement has emerged as a method to gain important additional information. We review the evidence on prehospital diagnosis of patients with STEMI and, In addition, we present the current knowledge on the new diagnostic methods that could have a future role in prehospital rule-in and rule-out of cardiac disease.

Keywords: ambulances; cardiac troponin; early diagnosis; electrocardiography; point-of-care systems; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; non ST-segment myocardial infarction; telemedicine

Introduction

Patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are among the most frequent presenters in acute medical care [1], [2]. Cardiac conditions require optimal patient logistics. Severe and life threatening disorders must be diagnosed immediately and treatment initiated without delay to reduce mortality and morbidity. This is easy in some situations. However, the signs and symptoms can be ambiguous and advanced time consuming diagnostic algorithms must be employed to reach the right diagnosis in due time [3], [4], [5]. Additionally, a fast rule-out of cardiac disease is important, as this will allow other diagnoses to be explored and treated at an earlier time. The focus of the attending doctor is the safety of the individual patient but crowded emergency departments is a huge challenge [6]. A world with limited healthcare resources challenges the emergency physicians who are faced with conflicting demands of fast turnaround times, patient triage, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. It has been documented that the health care related costs of patients presenting with symptoms of AMI reaches billions of Euros each year [6], [7]. It is intriguing that only a minor proportion of patients admitted with suspected AMI actually have the disease [5], [8]. Altogether, a fast and reliable rule-in and rule-out of cardiac disease holds the opportunity to optimize patient logistics, save healthcare funds, and improve outcome [3], [7], [9].

The prehospital phase represents a substantial part of the time spent during the acute admission and offers valid information to aid in fast diagnosis of cardiac conditions. The symptoms may be more pronounced at this first presentation as paramedics and physicians offer acute, relieving treatments upon their arrival. Unfortunately, the prehospital phase is frequently neglected in the diagnostic process and consequently opportunities to optimize patient handling and triage are missed. Moreover, unnecessary admissions may be the result.

During the last decade, new prehospital algorithms have emerged with the aim to improve the prehospital diagnosis in patients with cardiac symptoms. In this paper we review the established evidence on prehospital electrocardiography (ECG) diagnosis in patients with AMI. In addition, we present the current knowledge on the new diagnostic methods that could have a future role in prehospital rule-in and rule-out of cardiac disease.

Prehospital ECG diagnosis of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) if this can be performed in a timely manner [9]. However, the limited accessibility of hospitals with 24–7 PPCI capability is a significant obstacle to widespread use of PPCI, and only few countries have been able to offer PPCI to all patients with STEMI, Figure 1 [10], [11], [12]. In urban areas PPCI service is within reach for most patients, whereas offering PPCI to patients in rural areas is a challenge. This has led to an increased interest in prehospital diagnosis of patients with STEMI. The diagnostic modality of choice has been the ECG. Prehospital ECG diagnosis was pioneered in the late 1980s, and advances in cellular phone technology made transmission of full 12 lead ECG’s possible [13], [14], [15]. Hence, ECG interpretation was possible at a distance as the cardiologist on call could assist the paramedics and the ambulance physicians. Prehospital diagnosis allows for the patient to be rerouted directly to the PPCI capable hospital. The local hospital is bypassed and the time from alarm call to balloon inflation is reduced (system delay) [16]. Terkelsen and colleagues demonstrated a more than 1 h reduction of system delay among patients diagnosed in the prehospital setting and triaged directly to PPCI, compared to patients without prehospital ECG recording and admission to a local hospital [16]. Prehospital ECG diagnosis has been successfully implemented worldwide and field triage directly to PPCI is associated with improved outcome, Figure 2 [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Danish nationwide data suggests that each additional hour spent is associated with a 10% relative increase in both mortality and the risk of heart failure [18], [22], and that shorter system delays are associated with an increased proportion of patients returning to the labor market, Figure 3 [23].

The use of primary percutaneous intervention for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the European countries, measured in 2010 and 2011. From [10]. Reproduced with permission.
Figure 1:

The use of primary percutaneous intervention for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the European countries, measured in 2010 and 2011.

From [10]. Reproduced with permission.

Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI) in Denmark from 1999 to 2009. The patients are stratified according to prehospital triage strategy and whether patients were transported by ambulance or not. In 2009, 80% of patients who had prehospital diagnosis performed were rerouted and transported directly to the PPCI-center. From [17]. Reproduced with permission.
Figure 2:

Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI) in Denmark from 1999 to 2009.

The patients are stratified according to prehospital triage strategy and whether patients were transported by ambulance or not. In 2009, 80% of patients who had prehospital diagnosis performed were rerouted and transported directly to the PPCI-center. From [17]. Reproduced with permission.

Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality estimates for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n=6209). From [22]. Reproduced with permission.
Figure 3:

Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality estimates for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n=6209).

From [22]. Reproduced with permission.

The 2012 ESC Guidelines on management of AMI in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation advise that PPCI should be performed within 120 min of first medical contact [9]. However, time is needed for the ambulance to reach the patient, for prehospital handling of the patient, and for in-hospital preparation of the patient for PPCI. Therefore there is an upper time limit for the transport of the patient to the PPCI capable hospital [24]. One solution to this dilemma is to introduce PPCI facilities with a closer proximity. However, in less populated area, the number of presenting patients would not justify a 24-h PPCI service. The invasive cardiologist would lack everyday experience with STEMI, and often surgical and advanced anesthesiological backup would not be available. In accordance with international findings, we found that, 1% of our STEMI patients required acute surgery [25]. Alternatively all processes from emergency call to catheter could be optimized [26] as demonstrated by Sejersten and colleagues who showed a significant 1 h reduction in door-to-balloon delay in patients with a prehospital diagnosis compared with in-hospital diagnosis (34 vs. 97 min, p<0.001) [27]. Additionally, Sorensen et al. evaluated the routine use of prehospital ECG diagnosis and field triage in a larger region comprising both urban and rural surroundings [28]. Prehospital diagnosis and rerouting to the PPCI center reduced the advantage of living in close proximity of the PPCI center. The authors found that total system delay was only 9 min longer in patients living in rural areas, at a median of 40 km from the PPCI center, compared with patients living in an urban area with a median of 10 km from the PPCI center. Prehospital ECG diagnosis enables an early activation of the catheterization laboratory and preparation for the patient arrival as soon as the diagnosis is established. However, living in the close proximity of the PPCI center seems to be outweighed by the reduced amount of time to prepare for the patient. This results in a longer door-to-balloon delay, Figure 4 [24]. Even in an optimal setting, the system delay is a median of 80 min for those living in the near vicinity of the PPCI center. However, the shorter door-to-balloon time for patients with long traveling distances, still allows patients living up to 100 km away to be treated within 120 min when ground transport is used. We have documented that combining prehospital ECG diagnosis in patients with STEMI with immediate air lifting, utilizing physician manned helicopters, reduce the system delay significantly for patients with driving distances of more than 60 km. Thus, a STEMI-system where helicopters are used, provides patients with transport distances up to 150 km the possibility to be treated using PPCI at the tertiary heart center within the time advised by the guidelines [29].

Dependency of distance on the predicted system delay (time from alarm call to primary percutaneous intervention) and the various components of the system delay, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The median expected system delay is 80 min even in patients living close to the heart center. In an optimal setting where telemedicine prehospital diagnosis and rerouting is used, patients with driving distances up to 100 km may be treated within the 120 min advised by the guidelines. From [24]. Reproduced with permission.
Figure 4:

Dependency of distance on the predicted system delay (time from alarm call to primary percutaneous intervention) and the various components of the system delay, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

The median expected system delay is 80 min even in patients living close to the heart center. In an optimal setting where telemedicine prehospital diagnosis and rerouting is used, patients with driving distances up to 100 km may be treated within the 120 min advised by the guidelines. From [24]. Reproduced with permission.

Establishing the tentative STEMI diagnosis in the prehospital setting is easy in most cases. However, some present with ECG changes where acute ischemia is difficult to diagnose. In patients with a suspected AMI, 10% present with bundle branch block (BBB), and patients with BBB and AMI have a significantly higher mortality [30], [31]. Patients with presumed newly developed left bundle branch block (LBBB) in relation to AMI are at particular high risk and should be treated as STEMI. It is well established that newly developed right bundle branch block (RBBB) in the setting of AMI, is associated with a similar high mortality, suggesting that acute invasive treatment should also apply in this case [31], [32]. The difficulty in identifying ischemia in the ECG in the presence of BBB, results in only a minority of patients with LBBB myocardial infarction being treated with reperfusion therapy as recommended by the guidelines [31], [33]. The Sgarbossa criteria could aid in diagnosing LBBB myocardial infarction but when applied in cohorts of all-comers the Sgarbossa criteria suffice with resulting low sensitivity [34], [35], [36]. Other ECG changes associated to high risk STEMI are the “de Winter T-waves” [37], “Wellens’ Syndrome” [38], global ischemia associated with acute left main artery occlusions [39], anterior ST segment depression in posterior STEMI, and patients with paced rhythm. This raises the question of how the ECG interpretation is performed. Automated ECG interpretation algorithms have been suggested as a safe and effective method for diagnosing STEMI [40]. However, the automated algorithms do not detect the STEMI equivalent changes, the error rate is high and sensitivity is generally low [41], [42]. In a recent study, Garvey and colleagues investigated three automated algorithms and found sensitivities of approximately 60% and the algorithms suggested false positive STEMI diagnoses in 10% of patients without STEMI. Clark and colleagues compared the automated algorithms with human interpretation and found a 7% lower sensitivity for diagnosing STEMI [43]. Paramedics with 4–6 h of training may be able to identify classic STEMI, but one comparative study found a false negative rate for identification of anterior or lateral STEMI’s of 25%–50% [44], [45], [46]. Still, even physicians will miss STEMI and only physicians with expert ECG knowledge seem to be able to identify STEMI with sufficient precision [47]. One option is to train emergency physicians to a high level of ECG interpretation. However, emergency physicians cannot attend all patients with a suspected AMI, and the availability of emergency physicians may be limited in remote locations and less developed countries. Another option is to transfer the ECG for in-hospital expert telemedicine diagnosis. This can easily be implemented everywhere and ensure high quality ECG interpretation in all patients. In addition to false negative ECG interpretation, false positive activation of the catheterization laboratory is a particular problem. Experience from our center, indicates that 80%–85% of patients triaged to our center for PPCI ultimately have STEMI, but also that 96% of all catheterization laboratory activations were deemed appropriate [24], [48]. Patients, who are falsely triaged for PPCI essentially end up having an unnecessary CAG performed, are treated with antithrombotic and anticoagulant medications and the time needed to perform the CAG delays additional diagnostic initiatives. All these aspects intuitively increase the patient’s risk. Unfortunately we lack information on the potential worsening of the outcome for false positive STEMI patients.

In conclusion, identification of a STEMI is not an easy task, and patients with a STEMI are likely to be missed, irrespective of the method used and the person doing the ECG interpretation. However, using wireless ECG transmission for in-hospital evaluation by highly-skilled physicians has been shown to be both sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of STEMI and allow for relevant catheterisation laboratory activation. Combined with optimized and integrated STEMI systems of care, prehospital ECG diagnosis could aid in finally making PPCI available to all patients with STEMI.

Prehospital biomarker measurement

Patients with STEMI only constitute a minor proportion of the prehospital patient population presenting with symptoms and signs of an ACS. In addition the current 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation stress the importance of urgent CAG in patients with high-risk non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) [3]. The majority of patients with NSTEMI are admitted to non-PCI capable referral hospitals. For patients with a high risk, who develop an unstable cardiac condition, this initial admission delays a potentially lifesaving treatment and prolongs the admission. It has been shown that 63% of patients with NSTEMI have significant flow limiting coronary disease and that coronary occlusion may persist for days after symptom onset [49], [50]. With the recent advances in STEMI care and associated improved outcome, the mortality in patients with NSTEMI is now comparable to and may even exceed that of patients with STEMI [51], [52]. Studies investigating the timing of invasive treatment of patients with NSTEMI are few, but generally suggest that accelerated treatment is superior to delayed or selective conservative strategies [3]. Difficulties in ability to, consistently and correctly, diagnose patients with NSTEMI at first contact, are the main limitations in accelerating the coronary angiography (CAG) to offer a STEMI-like system of care in the setting of NSTEMI. Prehospital analysis of biomarkers of cardiac dysfunction or endogenous stress may be one method to gain more information in patients with non-conclusive ECG changes. There is increasing evidence that prehospital point-of-care testing (POCT) of biomarkers may provide important diagnostic information.

A total of 10 studies, investigating the utility of POCT of biomarkers in the ambulance, have been performed and are summarized in Table 1 [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Many studies include a low number of patients with a high prevalence of AMI which suggests selection. Gust and colleagues were the first to apply biomarker measurement in the ambulance [53]. In a small study, emergency physicians measured cardiac troponin T (cTnT) in 68 patients with chest pain. The test missed 75% of patients with AMI and the authors concluded that prehospital testing would not improve the diagnosis of AMI. The assay had a poor analytical sensitivity of 200 ng/L compared with the 14 ng/L 99th percentile upper reference level cTnT cut point used today. This analytical limitation is universal for all the studies reporting the diagnostic properties of cardiac troponin (cTn) in the prehospital setting. Combined with the known delayed release of cTn in myocardial infarction, the observed diagnostic performance for identification of AMI, of cTn measurement in the prehospital setting is low with reported sensitivities between 17 and 39%, Table 1 [63]. The results of the (small) study of 53 patients by DiSerio and colleagues with a surprisingly high reported 91% sensitivity, would probably not be replicated in a population of all-comers with chest pain [58]. One study by Roth and colleagues investigated the possibility to rule-out AMI in patients with long symptom duration and atypical chest pain [54]. They used a biomarker panel of creatinine kinase myocardial band (CK-MB), myoglobin and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) with a low analytical sensitivity. A total of 777 patients were included and only 11 patients had AMI. They found that it was possible to rule out AMI in 96% with a negative predictive value of 99%. However among those with a negative test, six did in fact have AMI or unstable angina and an additional three died within the first week after testing. The study illustrates the difficulties in ruling out AMI using assays without sufficient analytical properties, and certainly a prehospital single-marker measurement of Troponin is not useful for neither rule-in nor rule-out. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that selected high-risk NSTEMI-patients with classical symptoms and elevated prehospital cTn may observe a benefit in the future from direct admissions to invasive centers instead of admission to local hospitals.

Table 1:

Studies on the prehospital use of POC biomarker testing for rule-in or rule-out of acute myocardial infarction.

Three studies have investigated prehospital biomarker measurement in large cohorts that represent the typical population of patients presenting with symptoms of AMI. Svensson and colleagues used the same three-biomarker panel used by Roth and found poor diagnostic properties with sensitivities below 20% for the individual biomarkers and 21% in combination [56]. However, in a later sub-study, the proportion of AMI’s detected increased from 47% to 57% when the biomarker panel was combined with ECG changes [64]. In addition, the authors found that ECG changes and elevated biomarkers predicted a poor outcome and elevated biomarkers were found to be independent risk factors for 30-day mortality. Sørensen and colleagues published the results of a study investigating the routine use of qualitative cTnT testing performed by paramedics [60]. With only basic training, the paramedics, could obtain blood samples and perform a simple qualitative POCT cTnT measurement with a 97% success rate. Further, the prehospital POCT measurement was performed 71 min before in-hospital measurement. However, the high cut-point of 100 ng/L of the qualitative test was associated with a low sensitivity of 30%. In a more recent study, Stengaard and colleagues implemented quantitative POCT measurement performed by paramedics, Figure 5 [61]. Improved analytical properties (cut-point 50 ng/L) were associated with an increased sensitivity of 39% with regard to the diagnosis AMI. An elevated prehospital POC TnT was associated with increased mortality regardless of an AMI or not (hazard ratio of 3.26, p<0.001), Figure 6. The two latter studies are important because 1) POCT performed by paramedics in the prehospital setting would make biomarker measurement available to all patients transported in an ambulance, and 2) an elevated biomarker value, along with symptoms of AMI, could be used to triage the patients directly for advanced cardiac treatment.

Prehospital quantitative biomarker testing in patients with a suspected acute myocardial infarction. The paramedic obtains the blood sample using the intravenous cannula which is administered as part or standard operation procedure. The blood sample is then analyzed using a hand held instrument. The result of the measurement is available within 12 min.
Figure 5:

Prehospital quantitative biomarker testing in patients with a suspected acute myocardial infarction.

The paramedic obtains the blood sample using the intravenous cannula which is administered as part or standard operation procedure. The blood sample is then analyzed using a hand held instrument. The result of the measurement is available within 12 min.

Kaplan-Meier cumulative long term mortality curves of patients stratified by combinations of acute myocardial infarction or not, and prehospital point-of-care cardiac troponin T values above or below the detection level of 50 ng/L, n=924. From [61]. Reproduced with permission.
Figure 6:

Kaplan-Meier cumulative long term mortality curves of patients stratified by combinations of acute myocardial infarction or not, and prehospital point-of-care cardiac troponin T values above or below the detection level of 50 ng/L, n=924.

From [61]. Reproduced with permission.

In the Acute versus subacute coronary angiography in patients with non ST elevation myocardial infarction – the NONSTEMI trial phase 1, we utilized prehospital POCT cTnT in a study investigating the feasibility of a STEMI-like PPCI system of care in 250 patients with NSTEMI, randomized for either acute CAG or conventional therapy with CAG performed within 72 h (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01638806) [65]. Patients were eligible for inclusion, if they had symptoms of classic angina pectoris, and if they had an elevated POCT cTnT above 50 ng/L in the prehospital setting or within the first hour after admission, and/or if they had significant ST-segment depression. This rule-in algorithm allowed identification of a cohort of patients where 68% had elevated POCT cTnT values and where 59% could be identified already in the prehospital setting. In total, 86% of the patients had acute coronary syndrome, 76% had a culprit lesion and 64% needed revascularization of an acute coronary lesion. A total of 64% had NSTEMI and 11% had unstable angina pectoris. The endpoint committee judged that 8% had STEMI at the time of enrolment, although this was not suspected by the telemedicine cardiologist, who established the prehospital diagnosis. An additional 3% developed STEMI after enrolment, 5% in the conventional therapy group progressed to STEMI while awaiting subacute CAG compared with 2% in the acute CAG group, who developed STEMI while on route to the PPCI center. Likewise, 17% of patients in the conventional therapy group ultimately needed acute transfer to the PPCI center for accelerated CAG due to an unstable cardiac status. The study also suggests an altered revascularization strategy associated with acute CAG, in as much as half as many received traditional CABG (Acute CAG: 7%, Conventional therapy: 14%), in favor of PCI (Acute CAG: 53%, Conventional therapy: 48%) or hybrid procedures (Acute CAG: 6%, Conventional therapy: 3%). Finally, the study documented a significant reduction in the duration of the admission. The current recommendation for urgent CAG in patients with NSTEMI is confined to those who are hemodynamically unstable or have ST-segment dynamics and it may be that only these patients will benefit from acute CAG. However, using the prehospital biomarker measurement, we identify a group of patients with NSTEMI with a significantly worse outcome. This first phase of the study did not investigate outcome. The study has ceased recruiting after enrolment of a total of 500 patients in whom the pre-specified outcome endpoints will be evaluated.

At our institution we have been performing prehospital POCT cTnT measurement since 2012 as routine standard of care to supplement ECG recording. Approximately 70 prehospital vehicles have POCT equipment. Until today, prehospital POCT cTnT measurement has been performed in approximately 24.000 patients with suspected AMI. We currently study how this may alter the triage of patients with cardiac disease. Currently it is unsettled whether acute CAG is associated with improved outcome compared with delayed CAG. Nonetheless, current guidelines recommend CAG within 24 h in the majority of patients with NSTEMI, and acute CAG in high-risk patients. This alone, seems to qualify prehospital diagnostic strategies also in NSTEMI patients, to ensure that NSTEMI patients in the future are admitted directly to invasive centers.

Future perspectives in prehospital biomarker measurement

Acute coronary syndromes

Slagman and colleagues have measured high sensitivity TnT in stored biobank samples from 93 patients and found a prehospital sensitivity for identification of AMI of 87% using the 99th percentile upper reference level cut point of 14 ng/L. The authors also measured the novel biomarker Copeptin and found a significant added diagnostic accuracy (Area under the curve=0.88) and an impressive negative predictive value of 100% and a specificity of 50%. Copeptin is a surrogate marker of vasopressin and values are elevated in patients with severer endogenous stress and in patients with cardiovascular failure. Copeptin reaches peak values within the first hour after symptom onset in patients with AMI which may qualify the use of Copeptin in combination with cTn, for rapid rule out of AMI [3], [66]. We found similar diagnostic properties and strong predictive properties, when Copeptin and high sensitivity cTnT was measured in stored prehospital blood samples representing more than 900 patients [67]. POCT high sensitivity cTn assays are still not available, but with the POCT technology still developing, we may see a future, where the first high sensitivity cTn measurement is performed already at the scene of the event. Certainly, the positive predictive value of a prehospital high sensitivity cTn measurement for identification of AMI will not be impressing. Even though the majority of patients with increased high sensitivity Tn will not have AMI, they would suffer from other high-risk conditions qualifying for admission to hospital and maybe even directly to the coronary care unit or the catheterization laboratory. On the other hand, a normal high sensitivity cTn measurement would imply a good prognosis, suggesting that the emergency level could be downgraded. Although rule-out may be considered in patients with a low likelihood of acute coronary syndrome and a single prehospital high sensitivity Tn, the release kinetics of cTn makes it unsuitable for rule-out at this very early phase. A prehospital multi-marker approach using additional biomarkers combined with cTn could improve the ability to judge the patient without AMI or other high-risk conditions (Aortic dissection, pulmonary embolus etc.) while still on scene, or tentatively, in the office of the general practitioner. This would permit omission of the planned admission and the patient could stay at home. From our own data of prehospital high sensitivity cTn and Copeptin, we estimate that a significant proportion of admissions could be avoided, if such a strategy was implemented in the future. The Accelerated Rule Out of Myocardial Infarction (AROMI) trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02666326) was launched in 2016 and will include 4800 patients in a randomized design, to investigate the safety of ruling out AMI based on the combination of in-hospital cTn and Copeptin analyzed in prehospital rather than admission samples.

Acute heart failure

Dyspnea is the key symptom in patients with acute heart failure. However, in patients with suspected acute heart failure, other diagnoses are equally likely and may also interact as comorbid conditions. In patients with suspected AMI and dyspnea as the prevailing symptom, the mortality is four times higher than in patients with chest pain (30 day mortality: 13% vs. 2.9%) [68]. It may be that prehospital diagnostics can improve the diagnosis of patients with dyspnea due to a cardiac cause, by facilitating triage directly for the cardiac care unit. The natriuretic peptides are well established biomarkers for diagnosing patients with suspected heart failure and assays for measurement of natriuretic peptides are available for POCT. There are no published studies investigating the utility of natriuretic peptide POCT performed in the prehospital setting. However, The Prehospital Triage of Patients With Severe Shortness of Breath Using Biomarkers (PreBNP) study has included 700 patients with severe dyspnea and is investigating, in a randomized design, the effect of prehospital N-terminal pro Brain Natriuretic Peptide measurement on triage, treatment and admission time.

Conclusions

Prehospital diagnosis and field-triage directly to invasive centers for PPCI is accepted as gold standard in STEMI-patients. Current guidelines already recommend early invasive strategies within 24 h in most of NSTEMI-patients, and in selected NSTEMI-patients, a STEMI-like strategy is necessary. Focus should now be on optimizing prehospital diagnosis in NSTEMI patients and in this setting, prehospital biomarker measurements are expected to play an essential role.

References

  • 1.

    Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S, Bax J, Boersma E, Bueno H, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2011;32:2999–3054. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Goodacre S, Cross E, Arnold J, Angelini K, Capewell S, Nicholl J. The health care burden of acute chest pain. Heart 2005;91:229–30. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet J-P, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2015;37:267–515. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Hamm CW, Goldmann BU, Heeschen C, Kreymann G, Berger J, Meinertz T. Emergency room triage of patients with acute chest pain by means of rapid testing for cardiac troponin T or troponin I. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1648–53. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Brady WJ, Roberts D, Morris F. The nondiagnostic ECG in the chest pain patient: normal and nonspecific initial ECG presentations of acute MI. Am J Emerg Med 1999;17:394–7. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Bayley MD, Schwartz JS, Shofer FS, Weiner M, Sites FD, Traber KB, et al. The financial burden of emergency department congestion and hospital crowding for chest pain patients awaiting admission. Annals Emerg Med 2005;45:110–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Forberg JL, Henriksen LS, Edenbrandt L, Ekelund U. Direct hospital costs of chest pain patients attending the emergency department: a retrospective study. BMC Emerg Med 2006;6:1–7. Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, Woolard RH, Feldman JA, Beshansky JR, et al. Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1163–70. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Steg P, James SK, Atar D, Badano LP, Lundqvist CB, Borger MA, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2569–619. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Kristensen SD, Laut KG, Fajadet J, Kaifoszova Z, Kala P, Di Mario C, et al. Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction 2010/2011: current status in 37 ESC countries. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1957–70. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Smith FG, Brogan RA, Alabas O, Laut KG, Quinn T, Bugiardini R, et al. Comparative care and outcomes for acute coronary syndromes in Central and Eastern European Transitional countries: a review of the literature. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2015;4:537–54. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Kaifoszova Z, Kala P, Alexander T, Zhang Y, Huo Y, Snyders A, et al. Stent for life initiative: leading example in building STEMI systems of care in emerging countries. EuroIntervention 2014;10(Suppl T):T87–95. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Kudenchuk PJ, Maynard C, Cobb LA, Wirkus M, Martin JS, Kennedy JW, et al. Utility of the prehospital electrocardiogram in diagnosing acute coronary syndromes: the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention (MITI) project. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:17–27. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Giovas P, Papadoyannis D, Thomakos D, Papazachos G, Rallidis M, Soulis D, et al. Transmission of electrocardiograms from a moving ambulance. J Telemed Telecare 1998;4(Suppl 1):5–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Grim P, Feldman T, Martin M, Donovan R, Nevins V, Childers RW. Cellular telephone transmission of 12-lead electrocardiograms from ambulance to hospital. Am J Cardiol 1987;60:715–20. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Terkelsen CJ, Lassen JF, Norgaard BL, Gerdes JC, Poulsen SH, Bendix K, et al. Reduction of treatment delay in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: impact of pre-hospital diagnosis and direct referral to primary percutanous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J 2005;26:770–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Terkelsen CJ, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, Thaysen P, Ravkilde J, Johnsen SP, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention as a national reperfusion strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:570–6. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Terkelsen CJ, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, Trautner S, Johnsen SP, Vach W, et al. Health care system delay and heart failure in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: follow-up of population-based medical registry data. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:361–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Hall M, Laut K, Dondo TB, Alabas OA, Brogan RA, Gutacker N, et al. Patient and hospital determinants of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in England, 2003–2013. Heart. 2016. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308616 [Epub ahead of print]. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Fosbol EL, Granger CB, Jollis JG, Monk L, Lin L, Lytle BL, et al. The impact of a statewide pre-hospital STEMI strategy to bypass hospitals without percutaneous coronary intervention capability on treatment times. Circulation 2013;127:604–12. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Huber K, Gersh BJ, Goldstein P, Granger CB, Armstrong PW. The organization, function, and outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction networks worldwide: current state, unmet needs and future directions. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1526–32. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Terkelsen CJ, Sorensen JT, Maeng M, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, Trautner S, et al. System delay and mortality among patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Med Assoc 2010;304:763–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Laut KG, Hjort J, Engstrom T, Jensen LO, Tilsted Hansen HH, Jensen JS, et al. Impact of health care system delay in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction on return to labor market and work retirement. Am J Cardiol 2014;114:1810–6. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Rasmussen MB, Frost L, Stengaard C, Brorholt-Petersen JU, Dodt KK, Sondergaard HM, et al. Diagnostic performance and system delay using telemedicine for prehospital diagnosis in triaging and treatment of STEMI. Heart 2014;100:711–5. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Dehmer GJ, Weaver D, Roe MT, Milford-Beland S, Fitzgerald S, Hermann A, et al. A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:2017–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Frendl DM, Palmeri ST, Clapp JR Jr, Hampton D, Sejersten M, Young D, et al. Overcoming barriers to developing seamless ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction care systems in the United States: recommendations from a comprehensive Prehospital 12-lead Electrocardiogram Working Group. J Electrocardiol 2009;42:426–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Sejersten M, Sillesen M, Hansen PR, Nielsen SrL, Nielsen H, Trautner S, et al. Effect on treatment delay of prehospital teletransmission of 12-lead electrocardiogram to a cardiologist for immediate triage and direct referral of patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction to primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:941–6. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Sørensen JT, Terkelsen CJ, Nørgaard BL, Trautner S, Hansen TM, Bøtker HE, et al. Urban and rural implementation of pre-hospital diagnosis and direct referral for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2011;32:430–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Knudsen L, Stengaard C, Hansen TM, Lassen JF, Terkelsen CJ. Earlier reperfusion in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction by use of helicopter. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2012;20:70. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Neeland IJ, Kontos MC, de Lemos JA. Evolving considerations in the management of patients with left bundle branch block and suspected myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:96–105. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 31.

    Sørensen JT, Stengaard C, Sørensen CA, Thygesen K, Bøtker HE, Thuesen L, et al. Diagnosis and outcome in a prehospital cohort of patients with bundle branch block and suspected acute myocardial infarction. Eur heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2013;2:176–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32.

    Stenestrand U, Tabrizi F, Lindback J, Englund A, Rosenqvist M, Wallentin L. Comorbidity and myocardial dysfunction are the main explanations for the higher 1-year mortality in acute myocardial infarction with left bundle-branch block. Circulation 2004;110:1896–902. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 33.

    Go AS, Barron HV, Rundle AC, Ornato JP, Avins 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 34.

    Sgarbossa EB, Pinski SL, Barbagelata A, Underwood DA, Gates KB, Topol EJ, 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. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 35.

    Li SF, Walden PL, Marcilla O, Gallagher EJ. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients with left bundle branch block. Ann Emerg Med 2000;36:561–5. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 36.

    Kontos MC, McQueen RH, Jesse RL, Tatum JL, Ornato JP. Can myocardial infarction be rapidly identified in emergency department patients who have left bundle-branch block? Ann Emerg Med 2001;37:431–8. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 37.

    de Winter RJ, Verouden NJ, Wellens HJ, Wilde AA. A new ECG sign of proximal LAD occlusion. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2071–3. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 38.

    de Zwaan C, Bar FW, Wellens HJ. Characteristic electrocardiographic pattern indicating a critical stenosis high in left anterior descending coronary artery in patients admitted because of impending myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1982;103(4 Pt 2):730–6. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 39.

    Nikus KC, Eskola MJ. Electrocardiogram patterns in acute left main coronary artery occlusion. J. Electrocardiol 2011;41:626–9. Google Scholar

  • 40.

    Potter BJ, Matteau A, Mansour S, Essiambre R, Montigny M, Savoie S, et al. Performance of a new “physician-less” automated system of prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction diagnosis and catheterization laboratory activation. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:156–61. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 41.

    Garvey JL, Zegre-Hemsey J, Gregg R, Studnek JR. Electrocardiographic diagnosis of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: an evaluation of three automated interpretation algorithms. J Electrocardiol 2016;49:728–32. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 42.

    Guglin ME, Thatai D. Common errors in computer electrocardiogram interpretation. Int J Cardiol 2006;106:232–7. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 43.

    Clark EN, Sejersten M, Clemmensen P, Macfarlane PW. Automated electrocardiogram interpretation programs versus cardiologists’ triage decision making based on teletransmitted data in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1696–702. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 44.

    Cantor WJ, Hoogeveen P, Robert A, Elliott K, Goldman LE, Sanderson E, et al. Prehospital diagnosis and triage of ST-elevation myocardial infarction by paramedics without advanced care training. Am Heart J 2012;164:201–6. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 45.

    Feldman JA, Brinsfield K, Bernard S, White D, Maciejko T. Real-time paramedic compared with blinded physician identification of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of an observational study. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:443–8. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 46.

    Mencl F, Wilber S, Frey J, Zalewski J, Maiers JF, Bhalla MC. Paramedic ability to recognize ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on prehospital electrocardiograms. Prehosp Emerg Care 2013;17:203–10. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 47.

    Salerno SM, Alguire PC, Waxman HS. Competency in interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: a summary and appraisal of published evidence. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:751–60. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 48.

    Becker S, Chisholm G, Maeng M. Positive predictive value of clinically suspected ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using angiographic verification. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:923–7. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 49.

    Koyama Y, Hansen PS, Hanratty CG, Nelson GI, Rasmussen HH. Prevalence of coronary occlusion and outcome of an immediate invasive strategy in suspected acute myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevation. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:579–84. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 50.

    Pride YB, Tung P, Mohanavelu S, Zorkun C, Wiviott SD, Antman EM, et al. Angiographic and clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes presenting with isolated anterior ST-segment depression: a TRITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38) substudy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:806–11. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 51.

    Terkelsen CJ, Lassen JF, Norgaard BL, Gerdes JC, Jensen T, Gotzsche LB, et al. Mortality rates in patients with ST-elevation vs. non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: observations from an unselected cohort. Eur Heart J 2005;26:18–26. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 52.

    Mandelzweig L, Battler A, Boyko V, Bueno H, Danchin N, Filippatos G, et al. The second Euro Heart Survey on acute coronary syndromes: characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with ACS in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin in 2004. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2285–93. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 53.

    Gust R, Gust A, Böttiger BW, Böhrer H, Martin E. Bedside troponin T testing is not useful for early out-of-hospital diagnosis of myocardial infarction. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998;42:414–7. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 54.

    Roth A, Malov N, Golovner M, Sander J, Shapira I, Kaplinsky E, et al. The “SHAHAL” experience in Israel for improving diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes in the prehospital setting. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:608–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 55.

    Newman J, Aulick N, Cheng T, Faynor S, Curtis R, Mercer D, et al. Prehospital identification of acute coronary ischemia using a troponin t rapid assay. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:97–101. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 56.

    Svensson L, Axelsson C, Nordlander R, Herlitz J. Elevation of biochemical markers for myocardial damage prior to hospital admission in patients with acute chest pain or other symptoms raising suspicion of acute coronary syndrome. J Intern Med 2003;253:311–9. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 57.

    Schuchert A, Hamm C, Scholz J, Klimmeck S, Goldmann B, Meinertz T. Prehospital testing for troponin T in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1999;138(1 Pt 1):45–8. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 58.

    Di Serio F, Lovero R, Leone M, De Sario R, Ruggieri V, Varraso L, et al. Integration between the Tele-Cardiology Unit and the central laboratory: methodological and clinical evaluation of point-of-care testing cardiac marker in the ambulance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:768–73. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 59.

    Ecollan P, Collet JP, Boon G, Tanguy ML, Fievet ML, Haas R, et al. Pre-hospital detection of acute myocardial infarction with ultra-rapid human fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP) immunoassay. Int J Cardiol 2007;119:349–54. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 60.

    Sørensen JT, Terkelsen CJ, Stengaard C, Lassen JF, Trautner S, Christensen EF, et al. Prehospital troponin T testing in the diagnosis and triage of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2011;107:1436–40. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 61.

    Stengaard C, Sørensen JT, Ladefoged SA, Christensen EF, Lassen JF, Bøtker HE, et al. Quantitative point-of-care troponin T measurement for diagnosis and prognosis in patients with a suspected acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:1361–6. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 62.

    Slagman A, Searle J, Müller C, Möckel M. Temporal release pattern of copeptin and troponin T in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome and spontaneous acute myocardial infarction. Clin Chem 2015;61:1273–82. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 63.

    Thygesen K, Mair J, Giannitsis E, Mueller C, Lindahl B, Blankenberg S, et al. How to use high-sensitivity cardiac troponins in acute cardiac care. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2252–7. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 64.

    Svensson L, Axelsson C, Nordlander R, Herlitz J. Prognostic value of biochemical markers, 12-lead ECG and patient characteristics amongst patients calling for an ambulance due to a suspected acute coronary syndrome. J Intern Med 2004;255:469–77. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 65.

    Stengaard C, Sørensen JT, Rasmussen MB, Søndergaard HM, Dodt KK, Niemann T, et al. Acute versus subacute angiography in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction – the NONSTEMI trial phase I. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/2048872616648468 [Epub head of print]. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 66.

    Morgenthaler NG. Copeptin: a biomarker of cardiovascular and renal function. Congest Heart Fail 2010;16:S37–44. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 67.

    Stengaard C, Sørensen JT, Ladefoged SA, Christensen EF, Lassen JF, Bøtker HE, et al. Prehospital high-sensitivity troponin T analysis in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction Circulation 2012;126(suppl). Abstract. In press. Google Scholar

  • 68.

    Botker MT, Stengaard C, Andersen MS, Sondergaard HM, Dodt KK, Niemann T, et al. Dyspnea, a high-risk symptom in patients suspected of myocardial infarction in the ambulance? A population-based follow-up study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2016;24:15. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Carsten Stengaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark, Phone: +45 2874 1998, Fax: +45 78452260


Received: 2016-06-29

Accepted: 2016-11-01

Published Online: 2016-11-23

Published in Print: 2016-12-01


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: Carsten Stengaard: Research Grants: Roche Diagnostics, The Medicines Company. Christian Juhl Terkelsen: Research grant: Roche Diagnostics.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: Carsten Stengaard: Consulting fees/honorarium: Roche Diagnostics, Thermo Fischer Scientific. Jacob Thorsted Sørensen: Honorarium: Roche Diagnostics. Claus Kjær Pedersen: Consulting fees/honorarium: Roche Diagnostics.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Diagnosis, Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 155–166, ISSN (Online) 2194-802X, ISSN (Print) 2194-8011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2016-0021.

Export Citation

©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Evangelos Giannitsis and Hugo A. Katus
Diagnosis, 2016, Volume 3, Number 4, Page 135
[2]
Claus Kjær Pedersen, Carsten Stengaard, Kristian Friesgaard, Karen Kaae Dodt, Hanne Maare Søndergaard, Christian Juhl Terkelsen, and Morten Thingemann Bøtker
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 2019, Volume 27, Number 1
[3]
Martin B Rasmussen, Carsten Stengaard, Jacob T Sørensen, Ingunn S Riddervold, Troels M Hansen, Matthias Giebner, Claus-Henrik Rasmussen, Hans E Bøtker, and Christian J Terkelsen
European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, 2017, Page 204887261774589

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in