Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-019-01306-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The electrocardiogram (ECG) has become a popular tool in primary care. The clinical value of the ECG depends on the appropriateness of the indication and the interpretation skills of the general practitioner (GP).
To describe the use of electrocardiography in primary care and to assess the performance of GPs in interpreting ECGs and making subsequent management decisions.
Three hundred ECGs, recorded during daily practice in symptomatic patients by 14 GPs who regularly perform electrocardiography, were selected. Corresponding data of the indications, interpretations and subsequent management actions were extracted from the associated medical records. A panel consisting of an expert GP and a cardiologist reviewed the ECGs and specified their agreement with the findings and actions of the study GPs.
The most common indications were suspicion of a rhythm abnormality (43.7%), ischaemic heart disease (42.7%) and patient reassurance (14.3%). The study GPs interpreted 53.3% of the ECGs as showing no (new or acute) abnormality, whereas supraventricular rhythm disorders (12.3%), conduction disorders (7.7%) and repolarisation disorders (7.0%) were the most frequently reported pathological findings. Overall, the expert panel disagreed with the interpretations of the study GPs in 16.2% of cases, and with the GPs’ management actions in 11.7%. Learning goals for GPs performing electrocardiography could be formulated for acute coronary syndrome, rhythm disorders, pulmonary embolism, reassurance, left ventricular hypertrophy and premature ventricular complexes.
GPs who feel competent in electrocardiography performed well in the opinion of the expert panel. We formulated various learning objectives for GPs performing electrocardiography.
Chan CM, Willemsen RTA, Konings KTS. Electrocardiography in general practice. Huisarts Wet. 2014;57:196–200. CrossRef
Konings K, Willemsen RTA, Bertholet GJM. Evaluating and understanding ECGs. The. ECG, Vol. 10. method. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2017.
Dubin D. Snelle interpretatie van ECG’s (vierde herziene druk, based on 6th revised edition of Rapid interpretation of EKG’s). Amsterdam: Reed Business Education; 2013.
Rutten FH, Kessels AG, Willems FF, Hoes AW. Electrocardiography in primary care; is it useful? Int J Cardiol. 2000;74:199–205. CrossRef
De Ruijter W. ECGs in general practice: milk cow or Trojan horse? Huisarts Wet. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;57:404.
Scheltens T, De Beus MF, Hoes AW, et al. The potential yield of ECG screening of hypertensive patients: the Utrecht Health Project. J Hypertens. 2010;28:1527–33. CrossRef
Margolis S, Reed R. EKG analysis skills of family practice residents in the United Arab Emirates: a comparison with US data. Fam Med. 2001;33:447–52.
Jensen MS, Thomsen JL, Jensen SE, Lauritzen T, Engberg M. Electrocardiogram interpretation in general practice. Fam Pract. 2005;22:109–13. CrossRef
Zwietering P, Knottnerus A, Gorgels T, Rinkens P. Occurrence of arrhythmias in general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1996;14:244–50. CrossRef
Houghton AR, Sparrow NJ, Toms E, Cowley AJ. Should general practitioners use the electrocardiogram to select patients with suspected heart failure for echocardiography? Int J Cardiol. 1997;62:31–6. CrossRef
Bogun F, Anh D, Kalahasty G, et al. Misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation and its clinical consequences. Am J Med. 2004;117:636–42. CrossRef
White T, Woodmansey P, Ferguson DG, Channer KS. Improving the interpretation of electrocardiographs in an accident and emergency department. Postgrad Med J. 1995;71:132–5. CrossRef
Santos P, Pessanha P, Viana M, et al. Accuracy of general practitioners’ readings of ECG in primary care. Cent Eur J Med. 2014;9:431–6.
Macallan DC, Bell JA, Braddick M, Endersby K, Rizzo-Naudi J. The electrocardiogram in general practice: its use and its interpretation. J R Soc Med. 1990;83:559–62. CrossRef
Mant J, Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, et al. Accuracy of diagnosing atrial fibrillation on electrocardiogram by primary care practitioners and interpretative diagnostic software: analysis of data from screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly (SAFE) trial. BMJ. 2007;335:380. CrossRef
Whitman M, Layt D, Yelland M. Key findings on ECGs—level of agreement between GPs and cardiologists. Aust Fam Physician. 2012;41:59–62.
Hwan Bae M, Hoon LJ, Heon YD, et al. Erroneous computer electrocardiogram interpretation of atrial fibrillation and its clinical consequences. Clin Cardiol. 2012;35:348–53. CrossRef
Mawri S, Michaels A, Gibbs J, et al. The comparison of physician to computer interpreted electrocardiograms on ST-elevation myocardial infarction door-to-balloon times. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2016;15:22–5. CrossRef
Schlapfer J, Wellens HJ. Computer-interpreted electrocardiograms: benefits and limitations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:1183–92. CrossRef
Hughes KE, Lewis SM, Katz L, Jones J. Safety of computer interpretation of normal triage electrocardiograms. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:120–4. CrossRef
Santos P, Martins C, Sa L, Hespanhol AP, Couto L. Motives for requesting an electrocardiogram in primary health care. Cien Saude Colet. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;20:1549:54.
Sur DK, Kaye L, Mikus M, Goad J, Morena A. Accuracy of electrocardiogram reading by family practice residents. Fam Med. 2000;32:315–9.
Surawicz B, Childers R, Deal BJ, Gettes LS. AHA/ACCF/HRS Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: Part III: Intraventricular conduction disturbances. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:976–81. CrossRef
Compiet SAM, Willemsen RTA, Konings KTS, Stoffers H. Competence of general practitioners in requesting and interpreting ECGs—a case vignette study. Neth Heart J. 2018;26:377–84. CrossRef
Rolfe A, Burton C. Reassurance after diagnostic testing with a low pretest probability of serious disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama Intern Med. 2013;173:407–16. CrossRef
- Interpretations of and management actions following electrocardiograms in symptomatic patients in primary care: a retrospective dossier study
L. M. E. Wagenvoort
R. T. A. Willemsen
K. T. S. Konings
H. E. J. H. Stoffers
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Netherlands Heart Journal
Print ISSN: 1568-5888
Elektronisch ISSN: 1876-6250