Abstract
BackgroundPerforming electrocardiography is common in general practice, but the quality of indication setting and diagnostic accuracy have been disputed.ObjectivesTo assess the competence of general practitioners (GPs) in their decision-making process with regard to recording and interpreting an electrocardiogram (ECG) and evaluating the relevance of the result for management.MethodsAn online case vignette survey was performed among GPs and cardiologists (in 2015). Nine cases describing situations for which Dutch clinical guidelines recommend or advise against recording an ECG were presented. In each case, the participant had to make choices on recording an ECG, interpreting it, and using the result in a management decision. The reference standard for each ECG diagnosis was set by the expert author team.ResultsFifty GPs who interpret ECGs themselves, eight GPs who do not and 12 cardiologists completed the survey. Adherence to guidelines recommending an ECG was high for suspected atrial fibrillation, suspected arrhythmia present during consultation, including bradycardia, but much lower for progressive heart failure and stable angina. Diagnostic accuracy of GPs was best in atrial fibrillation (96%), sick sinus syndrome (85%) and old myocardial infarction (82%), but poor in left anterior fascicular block (16%) and incomplete right bundle branch block (10%). GPs often acknowledged the low relevance of the results of a non-indicated ECG.ConclusionGPs do not fully adhere to Dutch cardiovascular guidelines on indications for recording ECGs. Diagnostic accuracy was high for atrial fibrillation, sick sinus syndrome and old myocardial infarction and poor for left anterior fascicular block and incomplete right bundle branch block.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-018-1124-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
MethodsGeneral practitioners (GPs) worldwide have been recording electrocardiograms (ECGs) for decades, usefulness and diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiography by general practitioners (GPs) have been debated frequently [1,2,3,4,5,6]
To put things in perspective, we explored how cardiologists would act in the same clinical situations
The diagnostic accuracy of the GPs was best in atrial fibrillation, sick sinus syndrome and old myocardial infarction, and weakest in left anterior fascicular block and incomplete right bundle branch block
Summary
MethodsGeneral practitioners (GPs) worldwide have been recording electrocardiograms (ECGs) for decades, usefulness and diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiography by GPs have been debated frequently [1,2,3,4,5,6]. In 2014, Chan et al summarised indications and non-indications for electrocardiography in primary care to compensate for the lack of a guideline (see Fig. 1); this raked the debate once more [4, 7]. They used current cardiovascular guidelines for GPs in the Netherlands [8,9,10,11,12], supplemented by international literature [7]. Performing electrocardiography is common in general practice, but the quality of indication setting and diagnostic accuracy have been disputed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
