Key result
Coronary slow flow linked to a ~17% higher Index of Cardiac Electrophysiological Balance versus controls.
Why the study?
The index of cardiac electrophysiological balance (iCEB) reflects ventricular depolarization and repolarization balance better than conventional ECG parameters, but its status in coronary slow flow (CSF) was unknown.
Is the index of cardio-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) altered in patients with coronary slow flow compared to controls?
Case-Control (n=200)
Is the index of cardio-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) altered in patients with coronary slow flow compared to controls?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.9% vs 4.2%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Patients with coronary slow flow exhibit significantly increased iCEB and iCEBc, suggesting a potential electrocardiographic predisposition to malignant ventricular arrhythmias.
Objectives: Coronary slow flow (CSF) is defined as the late progression of applied contrast through coronary arteries. The cardiac electrophysiological balance index (iCEB) reflects the balance between ventricular depolarization and repolarization and provides more information about ventricular arrhythmogenesis (VA) than other electrocardiography (ECG) parameters (QT, corrected QT (QTc), etc.). We aimed to evaluate iCEB in patients with CSF. Material and Methods: We divided the study population into two groups as CSF and control. The CSF group consisted of 100 patients (33 female, 67 male, mean age 52.2 ± 2.6), while the control group consisted of the same number of age and sex-matched patients (35 female, 65 male, mean age 51.7 ± 1.4). ECG parameters of the study population (QRS duration, QT, T wave peak-to-end (Tp-e) intervals, iCEB (QT / QRS), and iCEBc (heart rate corrected QT (QTc) / QRS) rates were calculated and compared between CSF and control groups. Results: Intervals (QT, and QTc intervals) and Tp-e/QTc ratio were greater in the CSF group compared with controls [422.1 ± 12.8 bpm vs 349.4 ± 14.3 bpm, respectively, p< 0.001; 457.0 ± 12.2 bpm vs 378.1 ± 12.3 bpm, respectively, p< 0.001, and 0.19 vs 0.12, respectively, p< 0.001]. ICEB and iCEBc were significantly greater than controls [(4.9 ± 0.4 vs 4.2 ± 0.4, respectively, p< 0.001), (5.7 ± 0.3 vs 4.4 ± 0.3, respectively, p< 0.001)]. Conclusions: ICEB and iCEBc were significantly increased in patients with CSF. This may suggest that CSF may predispose to malign arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aşkın et al. (2024) conducted a case-control in Coronary slow flow (n=200). Coronary slow flow vs. Age- and sex-matched controls was evaluated on Index of Cardiac Electrophysiological Balance (iCEB) (p=< 0.001). Coronary slow flow was associated with a significantly higher Index of Cardiac Electrophysiological Balance compared to controls (4.9 vs 4.2, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: