4.7 Article

Electrocardiographic Criteria for the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 13, Pages 1694-1703

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.037

Keywords

electrocardiogram; left ventricular hypertrophy; novel criteria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Current electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) have low sensitivity. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to test a new method to improve the diagnostic performance of the electrocardiogram. METHODS The study was divided into 2 groups, a test and a validation cohort. In the test cohort, 94 patients were analyzed, including 47 with the diagnosis of hypertensive crisis and 47 with normal blood pressure at admission. Echocardiography was used to estimate the left ventricular mass index. Area under the curve (AUC) analysis was used for comparison of single and combined leads. The McNemar test was used to assess agreement among the ECG criteria against the left ventricular mass index. The proposed ECG criteria involved measuring the amplitude of the deepest S wave (SD) in any single lead and adding it to the S wave amplitude of lead V-4 (SV4). Currently accepted LVH ECG criteria such as Cornell voltage and Sokolow-Lyon were used for comparison. The validation cohort consisted of 122 consecutive patients referred for an echocardiogram regardless of the admitting diagnosis. RESULTS The SD was the most accurate single lead measurement for the diagnosis of LVH (AUC: 0.80; p < 0.001). When both cohorts were analyzed, the SD + SV4 criteria outperformed Cornell voltage with a significantly higher sensitivity (62% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 50% to 72%] vs. 35% [95% CI: 24% to 46%]). The specificities of all the criteria were $ 90%, with no significant difference among them. CONCLUSIONS The proposed criteria for theECGdiagnosis ofLVHimproved the sensitivity and overall accuracy of the test. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available