Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 702

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Evolving Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Presence of Left Bundle-Branch Block

Sgarbossa, Elena B., Pinski, Sergio L., Barbagelata, Alejandro, Underwood, Donald A., Gates, Kathy B., Topol, Eric J., Califf, Robert M., Wagner, Galen S.·1996·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The presence of left bundle-branch block on the electrocardiogram may conceal the changes of acute myocardial infarction, which can delay both its recognition and treatment. We tested electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of acute infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block. METHODS: The base-line electrocardiograms of patients enrolled in the GUSTO-1 (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries) trial who had left bundle-branch block and acute myocardial infarction confirmed by enzyme studies were blindly compared with the electrocardiograms of control patients who had chronic coronary artery disease and left bundle-branch block. The electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of infarction were then tested in an independent sample of patients presenting with acute chest pain and left bundle-branch block. RESULTS: Of 26,003 North American patients, 131 (0.5 percent) with acute myocardial infarction had left bundle-branch block. The three electrocardiographic criteria with independent value in the diagnosis of acute infarction in these patients were an ST-segment elevation of 1 mm or more that was concordant with (in the same direction as) the QRS complex; ST-segment depression of 1 mm or more in lead V1, V2, or V3; and ST-segment elevation of 5 mm or more that was disconcordant with (in the opposite direction from) the QRS complex. We used these three criteria in a multivariate model to develop a scoring system (0 to 10), which allowed a highly specific diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction to be made. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a clinical prediction rule based on a set of electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients with chest pain and left bundle-branch block. The use of these criteria, which are based on simple ST-segment changes, may help identify patients with acute myocardial infarction, who can then receive appropriate treatment.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199602223340801

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 702

Metadata

Authors
Sgarbossa, E. B., Pinski, S. L., Barbagelata, A., Underwood, D. A., Gates, K. B., Topol, E. J., Califf, R. M., & Wagner, G. S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1996-02-22
Volume
334
Issue
8
Pages
481-487
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2324512552
Cited by
702
References
1
FWCI
13.88
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: Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Evolving Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Presence of Left Bundle-Branch Block. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199602223340801
The paper
Sgarbossa, E. B., Pinski, S. L., Barbagelata, A., Underwood, D. A., Gates, K. B., Topol, E. J., Califf, R. M., & Wagner, G. S. (1996). Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Evolving Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Presence of Left Bundle-Branch Block. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199602223340801

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.