Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

“False-Positive” Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activation Among Patients With Suspected ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Larson, David M., Menssen, Katie M., Sharkey, Scott W., Duval, Sue, Schwartz, Robert S., Harris, James, Meland, Jeffrey T., Unger, Barbara T., Henry, Timothy D.·2007·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Allowing the emergency department physician to activate the cardiac catheterization laboratory is a key strategy to reduce door-to-balloon times in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There are limited data on the frequency of "false-positive" catheterization laboratory activation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for suspected STEMI. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, etiology, and outcomes of false-positive cardiac catheterization laboratory activation in patients with a suspected STEMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective registry from a regional system that includes transfer of patients with STEMI from 30 community and rural hospitals with pretransfer catheterization laboratory activation for percutaneous coronary intervention at a tertiary cardiovascular center in Minnesota. A total of 1345 patients were enrolled from March 2003 to November 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence of false-positive catheterization laboratory activation in patients with suspected STEMI by 3 criteria: no culprit coronary artery, no significant coronary artery disease, and negative cardiac biomarker results. RESULTS: Of the 1335 patients with suspected STEMI who underwent angiography, 187 (14%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.2%-16.0%) had no culprit coronary artery and 127 (9.5%; 95% CI, 8.0%-11.2%) did not have significant coronary artery disease. Cardiac biomarker levels were negative in 11.2% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.0%) of patients. The combination of no culprit artery with negative cardiac biomarker results was present in 9.2% (95% CI, 7.7%-10.9%) of patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-5.0%) without vs 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4%-5.8%) with a culprit coronary artery (P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of false-positive cardiac catheterization laboratory activation for suspected STEMI is relatively common in community practice, depending on the definition of false-positive. Recent emphasis on rapid door-to-balloon times must also consider the consequences of false-positive catheterization laboratory activation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.298.23.2754

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Larson, D. M., Menssen, K. M., Sharkey, S. W., Duval, S., Schwartz, R. S., Harris, J., Meland, J. T., Unger, B. T., & Henry, T. D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2007-12-19
Volume
298
Issue
23
Pages
2754
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2097598651
Cited by
326
References
0
FWCI
13.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “False-Positive” Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activation Among Patients With Suspected ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.298.23.2754
The paper
Larson, D. M., Menssen, K. M., Sharkey, S. W., Duval, S., Schwartz, R. S., Harris, J., Meland, J. T., Unger, B. T., & Henry, T. D. (2007). “False-Positive” Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activation Among Patients With Suspected ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.23.2754

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.