The Electrocardiogram at a Crossroads

Abstract

The ECG is at a crossroads as to its future integration into modern medical practice. Those most interested in electrocardiography remain the old guard, whose careers evolved with this technology. They remain as enamored by the experiential mythology as by the experimental science of the ECG. Electrophysiologists, who rightly should be carrying on the torch of further ECG development, are too busy with their therapeutic invasive procedures and devices to invest much time in diagnostic decision support. Young physicians in training are too busy learning the plethora of new diagnostic modalities and treatment procedures to even become competent in ECG interpretation. Many of them only have goals to recognize an ST elevation myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation, and to pass their board examinations. Their understanding of ST elevation myocardial infarction criteria could be easily exposed by asking them to name the contiguous pairs of standard ECG leads. A disappointing number would refer to pairs of leads that are contiguous on the ECG display such as II and III or V1 and V4, rather than the leads separated by 30° going around the surface of the heart as specified in the guidelines.1 Reimbursement provides a further counterincentive: to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw ( The Doctor’s Dilemma , 1926), “the doctor orders the test that pays the most” and that is no longer the ECG, but a panoply of imaging procedures. Examples of the experiential mythology that continue to haunt electrocardiography include the requirement for contiguous or adjacent leads instead of a single lead for fulfilling diagnostic criteria. The contiguous or adjacent lead constraint is a residual from the thick, noisy tracings from the early days of electrocardiography before high-impedance amplifiers, DC coupling, and digital processing produced the high-resolution tracings of today (Figure 1). Applying the criteria to a …