OBJECTIVE: To review the accuracy of electrocardiography in screening for left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with hypertension. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies of test accuracy of six electrocardiographic indexes: the Sokolow-Lyon index, Cornell voltage index, Cornell product index, Gubner index, and Romhilt-Estes scores with thresholds for a positive test of > or =4 points or > or =5 points. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases ((Pre-)Medline, Embase), reference lists of relevant studies and previous reviews, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers scrutinised abstracts and examined potentially eligible studies. Studies comparing the electrocardiographic index with echocardiography in hypertensive patients and reporting sufficient data were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study populations, echocardiographic criteria, and methodological quality of studies were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Negative likelihood ratios, which indicate to what extent the posterior odds of left ventricular hypertrophy is reduced by a negative test, were calculated. RESULTS: 21 studies and data on 5608 patients were analysed. The median prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy was 33% (interquartile range 23-41%) in primary care settings (10 studies) and 65% (37-81%) in secondary care settings (11 studies). The median negative likelihood ratio was similar across electrocardiographic indexes, ranging from 0.85 (range 0.34-1.03) for the Romhilt-Estes score (with threshold > or =4 points) to 0.91 (0.70-1.01) for the Gubner index. Using the Romhilt-Estes score in primary care, a negative electrocardiogram result would reduce the typical pre-test probability from 33% to 31%. In secondary care the typical pre-test probability of 65% would be reduced to 63%. CONCLUSION: Electrocardiographic criteria should not be used to rule out left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with hypertension.
OBJECTIVE: To review the accuracy of electrocardiography in screening for left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with hypertension. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies of test accuracy of six electrocardiographic indexes: the Sokolow-Lyon index, Cornell voltage index, Cornell product index, Gubner index, and Romhilt-Estes scores with thresholds for a positive test of > or =4 points or > or =5 points. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases ((Pre-)Medline, Embase), reference lists of relevant studies and previous reviews, and experts. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers scrutinised abstracts and examined potentially eligible studies. Studies comparing the electrocardiographic index with echocardiography in hypertensivepatients and reporting sufficient data were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study populations, echocardiographic criteria, and methodological quality of studies were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Negative likelihood ratios, which indicate to what extent the posterior odds of left ventricular hypertrophy is reduced by a negative test, were calculated. RESULTS: 21 studies and data on 5608 patients were analysed. The median prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy was 33% (interquartile range 23-41%) in primary care settings (10 studies) and 65% (37-81%) in secondary care settings (11 studies). The median negative likelihood ratio was similar across electrocardiographic indexes, ranging from 0.85 (range 0.34-1.03) for the Romhilt-Estes score (with threshold > or =4 points) to 0.91 (0.70-1.01) for the Gubner index. Using the Romhilt-Estes score in primary care, a negative electrocardiogram result would reduce the typical pre-test probability from 33% to 31%. In secondary care the typical pre-test probability of 65% would be reduced to 63%. CONCLUSION: Electrocardiographic criteria should not be used to rule out left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with hypertension.
Authors: Peter S Sever; Björn Dahlöf; Neil R Poulter; Hans Wedel; Gareth Beevers; Mark Caulfield; Rory Collins; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Arni Kristinsson; Gordon T McInnes; Jesper Mehlsen; Markku Nieminen; Eoin O'Brien; Jan Ostergren Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-04-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Henrik M Reims; Suzanne Oparil; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Richard B Devereux; Stevo Julius; William E Brady; Frej Fyhrquist; Hans Ibsen; Lars H Lindholm; Per Omvik; Hans Wedel; Gareth Beevers; Ulf de Faire; Krister Kristianson; Ole Lederballe-Pedersen; Markku S Nieminen; Björn Dahlöf Journal: Blood Press Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.835
Authors: Lawrence J Appel; Catherine M Champagne; David W Harsha; Lawton S Cooper; Eva Obarzanek; Patricia J Elmer; Victor J Stevens; William M Vollmer; Pao-Hwa Lin; Laura P Svetkey; Sarah W Stedman; Deborah R Young Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Apr 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan Chrispin; Aditya Jain; Elsayed Z Soliman; Eliseo Guallar; Alvaro Alonso; Susan R Heckbert; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima; Saman Nazarian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sara Mutikainen; Alfredo Ortega-Alonso; Markku Alén; Jaakko Kaprio; Jouko Karjalainen; Taina Rantanen; Urho M Kujala Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: M A Gómez-Marcos; J I Recio-Rodríguez; M C Patino-Alonso; C Agudo-Conde; E Rodríguez-Sánchez; L Gómez-Sánchez; M Gómez-Sánchez; L García-Ortiz Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Adrian C Covic; Laura-Dumitriţa Buimistriuc; Darren Green; Alina Stefan; Silvia Badarau; Philip A Kalra Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 1.468