Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 161(4):377-388; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi048
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crow, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Luepker, R. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Crow, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Luepker, R. V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Eliminating Diagnostic Drift in the Validation of Acute In-Hospital Myocardial Infarction—Implication for Documenting Trends across 25 Years

The Minnesota Heart Survey

Richard S. Crow , Peter J. Hannan, David R. Jacobs, Jr. , Seung-Min Lee, Henry Blackburn and Russell V. Luepker

From the Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Long-term trends in epidemiologic studies of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) require application of a consistent diagnostic algorithm. Typically an algorithm includes chest pain, cardiac enzymes, electrocardiographic findings, and autopsy results. The Minnesota Heart Survey (MHS) has determined trends for incident AMI and for in-hospital and long-term outcomes over a 25-year period (1970–1995). However, dramatic changes have occurred that seriously challenge the ability of the MHS and other epidemiologic studies to use a consistent diagnostic algorithm. These include newer and more sensitive cardiac biomarkers, introduction of diagnosis-related groups, and change in International Classification of Diseases coding. In the MHS, the electrocardiogram is the only diagnostic element consistently available and consistently classified over this 25-year period. The authors identified eight dichotomous Minnesota Code criteria that provided a consistent diagnostic method from 1970 to 1995 as documented by extensive cross-validation. These criteria were combined into a logistic score and used to define incident, recurrent, and attack AMI rates over this 25-year period. For both men and women, AMI rates determined by electrocardiogram are parallel to rates based on the International Classification of Diseases and parallel over adjacent survey periods to the standard MHS algorithm. The electrocardiogram classified by Minnesota Code provides the only consistent long-term diagnostic tool for AMI trends over this 25-year period.

coronary disease; diagnostic techniques, cardiovascular; electrocardiography; myocardial infarction


Abbreviations: AMI, acute myocardial infarction; AMIECG, electrocardiogram-based AMI; CPK, creatine phosphokinase; CPK-MB, myocardial band fraction of CPK; ICD, International Classification of Diseases; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MHS, Minnesota Heart Survey; SGOT, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase.


Correspondence to Dr. Richard S. Crow, Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, 1300 South 2nd Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454 (e-mail: crow{at}epi.umn.edu).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.