Electrocardiographic signs to differentiate between chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and intermediate-high risk acute pulmonary embolism

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. Forest plot illustrating the odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI for factors distinguishing CTEPH from APE in a multivariate logistic regression model. Positive OR values (right of the vertical dashed line at OR = 1) favour the diagnosis of CTEPH, while negative OR values (left of the line) favour APE.

• 

  Fig. 2. Receiver operating characteristic curves for our CTEPHscore (panel A) and simplified version: CTEPH ECG SCORE (panel B). Negative predictive value for both scores was 93.75% (95% CI 85.21–97.5%). (A) The optimal cut-off threshold was established at score level of − 0.52 with a sensitivity of 94.4% (95% CI 84.76–98.27%) and a specificity of 84.5% (95% CI 76.17–92.74%). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.953 (95% CI 0.91–0.982, P < 0.0001). (B) The optimal cut-off threshold was established at score level of > − 0.5 with a sensitivity of 94.37% and specificity of 84.1%, AUC 0.954 (95% CI 0.905–0.982, P < 0.0001). No differences between the original score and simplified score were observed (AUC difference of 0.0002, P = 0.86).

• 

  Fig. 3. Bootstrapped distribution of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the CTEPH ECG SCORE model. The histogram depicts AUC values derived from 1000 bootstrapped resamples of the initial cohort comprising 71 patients with acute pulmonary embolism and 71 patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.