The diagnostic capability of electrocardiography on the cardiogenic shock in the patients with acute myocarditis

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. Flow chart describing the enrollment of the patient cohort. NFM nonfulminant myocarditis, FM fulminant myocarditis

• 

  Fig. 2. Comparison of the diagnostic capability for the different indices. There was no significant difference among the area under the five ROC curves

• 

  Fig. 3. a FM patient. PR interval 150 ms, QRS complex 140 ms, with pathological Q wave, without ventricluar arrhythmia. ECG score = 580 points. b FM patient. PR interval 160 ms, QRS complex 130 ms, with ventricular tachycardia, without pathological Q wave. ECG score = 580 points. c FM patient. PR interval 170 ms, QRS complex 110 ms, with accelerated idoventricular rhythm, without pathological Q wave, ECG score = 560 points. d FM patient. PR interval 280 ms, QRS complex 240 ms, without ventricular arrhythmia and pathological Q wave. ECG score = 520 points. e NFM patient. PR interval 180 ms, QRS complex 100 ms, without ventricular arrhythmia and pathological Q wave. ECG score = 280 points. f NFM patient. PR interval 140 ms, QRS complex 90 ms, without ventricular arrhythmia and pathological Q wave. ECG score = 230 points

• 

  Fig. 4. Assessment of the diagnostic capability of ECG score. The area under the ROC curve of ECG score was similar to that of LVEF, but significantly larger than that of shock index (P < 0.05)