This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A previously healthy 53 yo woman was transferred to a receiving hospital in cardiogenicshock. Here was the ECG: There is sinus tachycardia. Referring to Figure-1 — this 53-year old woman who presented in extremis with cardiogenicshock and an initial pH = 6.9, This was sent by a reader. and K was normal.
I see the following: There is sinus tachycardia ( upright P wave with fixed PR interval in lead II ) — at the rapid rate of ~130/minute. Sinus Tachycardia and RAD — as already noted above. PEARL # 2: In the absence of associated heart failure ( cardiogenicshock ) — sinus tachycardia is not a common finding in acute MI.
There is sinus tachycardia. Sinus tachycardia, which exaggerates ST segments and implies that there is another pathology. I have always said that tachycardia should argue against acute MI unless there is cardiogenicshock or 2 simultaneous pathologies. Here is that ECG: What do you think?
Tachycardia (or nearly) 2. Tachycardia, = 1.8. Finally , they found these independent predictors of PE: Note that tachycardia only has an Odds ratio of 1.8. Tachycardia is unusual in ACS unless there is cardiogenicshock or a second simultaneous pathology. Poor R-wave progression 4. Domed T-wave inversion 5.
Can J of Cardiol 2018, 34: 132-145 Here are some other cases: LVH, LBBB, RBBB, and RVH may manifest ST depression without any ischemia! An elderly man with sudden cardiogenicshock, diffuse ST depressions, and STE in aVR Literature 1. A slightly prolonged QTc ( although this is difficult to assess given the tachycardia ).
A b rief chart review revealed his most recent echo in 2018, with LV EF 67%, “very small” inferior wall motion abnormality. I find AV dissociation in VT to be very difficult to differentiate from artifact, as there are always random blips on tachycardia tracings. Past medical history includes coronary stenting 17 years prior.
Figure B At this point, with the ECG changing from diffuse ST depression to widespread ST elevation and the patient presenting in cardiogenicshock, left main coronary artery (LMCA) occlusion is the likely diagnosis. And then, 15 minutes later in today's case — this patient was in cardiogenicshock.
The axiom of "type 1 (ACS, plaque rupture) STEMIs are not tachycardic unless they are in cardiogenicshock" is not applicable outside of sinus rhythm. 2) Tachycardia to this degree can cause ST segment changes in several ways. Is this inferor STEMI? Atrial Flutter with Inferior STEMI? What is the Diagnosis?
We can see enough to make out that the rhythm is sinus tachycardia. Tachycardia is unusual for OMI, unless the patient is in cardiogenicshock (or getting close). The January 30, 2018 post — for PTA. The ECG has a lot of artifact, and the amplitude is very small, making interpretation challenging.
1) as far as I can tell, there is very little data on amiodarone for this indication 2) amiodarone has beta blockade effects which could be deleterious in a patient with large anterior MI with pulmonary edema and at risk for cardiogenicshock (and she did go into shock. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110515
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join thousands of users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content