Key result
An abnormal spatial peaks QRS-T angle demonstrated superior sensitivity for detecting left ventricular hypertrophy compared to conventional ECG criteria and was independently associated with an increased risk of heart failure hospitalization or death (HR 1.95).
Why the study?
Conventional ECG signs of left ventricular hypertrophy lack sensitivity, prompting evaluation of the diagnostic and prognostic performance of an abnormal spatial peaks QRS-T angle compared to conventional criteria.
Does the spatial QRS-T angle improve diagnostic sensitivity for left ventricular hypertrophy and predict heart failure hospitalization or death compared to conventional ECG criteria in patients with QRS <120 ms?
Observational (n=2,390)
Yes
Does the spatial QRS-T angle improve diagnostic sensitivity for left ventricular hypertrophy and predict heart failure hospitalization or death compared to conventional ECG criteria in patients with QRS <120 ms?
Hazard Ratio: 1.95 (95% CI 1.36–2.8)
p-value: p=<0.001
The spatial QRS-T angle provides significantly higher sensitivity for detecting left ventricular hypertrophy than conventional ECG criteria and serves as an independent prognostic marker for heart failure hospitalization or death.
Background Conventional electrocardiographic (ECG) signs of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) lack sensitivity. The aim was to identify LVH based on an abnormal spatial peaks QRS-T angle, and evaluate its diagnostic and prognostic performance compared to that of conventional ECG criteria for LVH. Methods This was an observational study with four cohorts, all with a QRS duration <120 ms: (1) Healthy volunteers to define normality (n=921), (2) Separate healthy volunteers to compare test specificity (n=461), (3) Patients with at least moderate LVH by cardiac imaging (Imaging-LVH) to compare test sensitivity (n=225), and (4) Patients referred for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate the combined outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or all-cause death (Clinical-Consecutive, n=783). Results An abnormal spatial peaks QRS-T angle was defined as exceeding the upper limit of normal, which was found to be ≥ 40° for females and ≥ 55° for males. In healthy volunteers, the specificity of the QRS-T angle to detect LVH was 96% (females) and 98% (males). In Imaging-LVH, the QRS-T angle had a higher sensitivity to detect LVH than conventional ECG criteria (93–97% vs 13–56%, p <0.001 for all). In Clinical-Consecutive, of those who did not have any LVH, 238/556 (43%) had an abnormal QRS-T angle, suggesting it can occur even without LVH. There was an association with outcomes in univariable analysis for the QRS-T angle, Cornell voltage, QRS duration, and Cornell product (hazard ratios 1.68–2.5, p<0.01 for all) that persisted in multivariable analysis only for the QRS-T angle and QRS duration (p<0.001 for both). Conclusions An increased QRS-T angle rarely occurred in healthy volunteers, was a mainstay of moderate or greater LVH, was common in clinical patients without LVH but with cardiac co-morbidities, and associated with outcomes. Thus, an increased QRS-T angle identifies left ventricular electrical remodeling that can occur in the absence of LVH detected by imaging. The improved diagnostic and independent prognostic performance for the QRS-T angle suggests that it should be investigated when ECGs are evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maanja et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Left ventricular hypertrophy (n=2,390). Abnormal spatial peaks QRS-T angle vs. Normal QRS-T angle and conventional ECG criteria was evaluated on Combined outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or all-cause death (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.36-2.80, p=<0.001). An abnormal spatial peaks QRS-T angle demonstrated superior sensitivity for detecting left ventricular hypertrophy compared to conventional ECG criteria and was independently associated with an increased risk of heart failure hospitalization or death (HR 1.95).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: