Thoughts About the Abnormalities in the Electrocardiogram of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction with Emphasis on a more Accurate Method of Interpreting ST‐segment Displacement: Part I

The QRS, S‐T, and T wave abnormalities produced by the usual myocardial infarction are discussed in Part I of this manuscript. The recent guidelines supplied by the ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines divide primary S‐T segment displacement into S‐T segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non S‐T segment elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Accordingly, the electrophysiologic mechanisms responsible for epicardial and subendocardial injury that produce the S‐T segment abnormalities are discussed in this manuscript. In this regard, the author suggests that the Grant method of interpreting the 12 lead electrocardiogram, which uses basic principles and vector concepts, is a more accurate method of identifying epicardial injury and subendocardial injury than memorizing the rules provided by the guidelines. An electrocardiogram is shown to illustrate this point. In Addition, the author expresses his personal view that labeling an electrocardiogram as NSTEMI but not stating what is actually present in the tracing is a cumbersome method of communication. The author believes it is better communication to state what is present rather than to state what is not present. At best, the result of both assessments should be stated in the interpretation. Part II of the manuscript is devoted to a discussion as to why treatment with thrombolytic or percutaneous coronary intervention is more effective in patients whose electrocardiograms reveal epicardial injury than it is in patients whose electrocardiograms reveal subendocardial injury or no injury. Copyright © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.