This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Davis, B. R. Articles by Lichstein, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davis, B. R. Articles by Lichstein, E. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Prognostic Value of the Duration of the Ambulatory Electrocardiogram after Myocardial Infarction

Lawrence M. Friedman, MD

Edgar Lichstein, MD

The purpose of this study was to examine the value of various durations of ambulatory ECG recording with regard to providing useful prognostic information. The authors explored a decision theoretic approach to determine the most useful period of monitoring for making a treatment decision based upon postulated benefit-to-risk ratios of antiarrhythmic therapies. They used data collected as part of the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT), a randomized clinical trial of propranolol versus placebo in 3,837 post-myocardial-infarction patients. In BHAT, 1,336 placebo-treated patients had a 24-hour ambulatory ECG that had at least 23 readable hours. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for eight definitions of ventricular arrhythmia using either total mortality or sudden death (death within one hour of symptoms) as an endpoint. These indices were obtained using the first 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours plus a random hour, a random daytime hour, and a random nighttime hour of the 24-hour ECG of 1,336 placebo-treated patients. The study showed that in the case of high-risk, low-benefit therapies, no test is needed to make a treatment decision. No one should be treated. In the case of high-benefit, low-risk therapies, again, no test is required. Everyone should be treated. For therapies in the middle benefit-to-risk ratio range the most appropriate test for a treatment decision changes from the very specific to the most sensitive. Twenty-four hours of ambu latory monitoring is usually not necessary for a treatment decision, since four hours is likely to be sufficient. Key words: benefit-to-risk ratios; sensitivity and specificity; Holter monitor; ventricular arrhythmia. (Med Decis Making 8:9-18, 1988)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 1, 9-18 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800102


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. H. Crawford, S. J. Bernstein, P. C. Deedwania, J. P. DiMarco, K. J. Ferrick, A. Garson Jr, L. A. Green, H. L. Greene, M. J. Silka, P. H. Stone, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for ambulatory electrocardiography: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the Guidelines for Ambulatory Electrocardiography) developed in collaboration with the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 1999; 34(3): 912 - 948. [Full Text] [PDF]