Why the study?
The role of ECG in CTEPH diagnosis and prognosticating has not yet been established.
Can ECG criteria for right ventricular hypertrophy predict clot localization in patients with newly diagnosed CTEPH?
Can ECG criteria for right ventricular hypertrophy predict clot localization in patients with newly diagnosed CTEPH?
Specific ECG criteria for right ventricular hypertrophy, particularly RV1 and SV6 amplitudes, can help differentiate between proximal and distal clot localization in patients with CTEPH.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ECG RVH criteria may correlate with clot localization in CTEPH; leaves open diagnostic or prognostic utility pending validation.
The role of electrocardiography (ECG) in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) diagnosis and prognosticating has not been yet established. We aimed to assess the relationships of the recommended ECG criteria of right ventricular hypertrophy (RVH) with clot localization in CTEPH patients. ECG patterns of RVH according to the American College of Cardiology Foundation were assessed in patients with newly diagnosed CTEPH. We enrolled 58 (45.3%) patients with proximal and 70 (54.7%) with distal CTEPH. Receiver-operating characteristics curves analysis indicated that the following ECG abnormalities predicted proximal CTEPH localization: RV1 > 6 mm—AUC 0.75 (CI: 0.66–0.84, p < 0.00001); SV6 > 3 mm—AUC 0.70 (CI: 0.60–0.79, p < 0.00001); SI > RI wave—AUC 0.67 (CI: 0.58–0.77, p = 0.0004); RV1:SV1 > 1.0—AUC 0.66 (CI: 0.56–0.76, p = 0.0009); RV1 peak > 0.035 s (QRS < 120 ms)—AUC 0.66 (CI: 0.56–0.75, p = 0.0016); RV1:SV1 > RV3(V4):SV3(V4)—AUC-0.65 (CI: 0.54–0.75, p = 0.0081); RaVR > 4 mm—AUC 0.62 (CI: 0.52–0.71, p = 0.002) and PII > 2.5 mm—AUC 0.62 (CI: 0.52–0.72, p = 0.00162). Pulmonary vascular resistance significantly correlated with amplitudes of RV1 (r = 0.34, p = 0.008), SV6 (r = 0.53, p = 0.000027) and PII (r = 0.44, p = 0.00007). In patients with CTEPH, only 8 out of 23 ECG RVH criteria were useful for differentiating between proximal and distal CTEPH localization and we found that RV1 and SV6 may contribute as potential discriminators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sławek-Szmyt et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: