Why do we keep missing left circumflex artery myocardial infarctions?

Diagnosis of left circumflex artery (LCx) myocardial infarctions via 12‑lead electrocardiogram (ECG) has posed a challenge to healthcare professionals for many years. A retrospective observational study was performed to analyze patients admitted with myocardial infarction. The study used electronic medical records and specific ICD-10 codes to identify eligible patients, resulting in 2032 encounters. After independent adjudication of cardiac biomarkers, coronary angiography, and electrocardiographic changes, a final patient population of 58 encounters with acute occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) with a culprit LCx lesion was established. OMI was defined as a lesion with either thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow (TIMI) 0–2 or TIMI 3 with Troponin I > 1 ng/mL (Reference range 0.00–0.03 ng/mL). ECGs of these patients were then independently evaluated and grouped into 8 different classifications based on the presence or absence of ST elevation and/or depression in corresponding leads. ECG patterns and anatomical characteristics (proximal or distal to the first obtuse marginal artery) of the LCx lesions were then correlated. The appropriateness of triage and delay in reperfusion therapy were also assessed. Those with a left dominant or codominant circulation, and with LCx lesions proximal to the first obtuse marginal artery, were more likely to present with no or subtle ST-segment changes that led to delays in reperfusion therapy. Patients with left or codominant coronary artery circulation, with OMI proximal to the first obtuse marginal artery, may be less likely to have “classic” findings of ST-segment elevation on ECG due to cancellation forces in the limb leads.