Why the study?
To evaluate the relationship between reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and conventional or novel ECG signs, particularly for identifying patients with mildly-reduced EF.
Do electrocardiographic signs of impaired depolarization, such as fragmented QRS, identify left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients?
Do electrocardiographic signs of impaired depolarization, such as fragmented QRS, identify left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients?
Fragmented QRS is significantly associated with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and may serve as a useful non-invasive marker for identifying patients with mildly-reduced EF.
Supports fQRS as a potential marker for mildly reduced EF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Aim. To study the relationship between a decrease in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and conventional electrocardiographic (ECG) signs associated with myocardial structure changes (pathological Q wave, ventricular arrhythmias), and relatively novel and less studied (fragmented QRS (fQRS), early ventricular repolarization (EVR)) and to evaluate their significance for identifying patients with mildly-reduced EF (mrEF). Material and methods . The study included 148 patients who were treated and examined at the Almazov National Medical Research Center. During the ECG analysis, fQRS, EVR, pathological Q wave, and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) were assessed. Echocardiography data were analyzed. Statistical processing was carried out, including Fisher and chi-squared test, as well as correlation and ROC analysis. Results. Depending on the EF level, patients were divided into three groups: group 1 — patients with reduced EF (rEF) (<40%); group 2 — patients with mrEF (40-49%); group 3 — patients with preserved EF (pEF) (>50%). In the 1st group (with rEF), fQRS was registered in 16 (51,6%) patients, in the 2nd (with mrEF) — in 13 (44,8%), in the 3rd (with EF >50%) — in 16 (18,2%). Pathological Q wave was detected in the 1st group (rEF) in 20 (65%) patients, in the 2nd (mrEF) — in 10 (35%); in the 3rd (pEF) — in 15 (18%) (p<0,001). ROC analysis found that fQRS is more important for identifying patients with mrEF. In the 1st group (rEF), EVR was registered in 2 (6,5%) patients, in the 2nd (pEF) — in 2 (6,9%), in the 3rd (EF>50%) — in 11 (12,5%); the differences were not significant (p=0,5). The relationship of EVR, the number of PVCs and the presence of ventricular tachycardia with EF was not revealed. Conclusion. FQRS is significantly more often observed with a decrease in EF and may be a marker of an mildly-reduced EF. There were no significant correlations between EVR and EF. There was also no relationship between VAs and LV systolic dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gordeeva et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: