Qingmiao Shao1, Lei Meng1, Gary Tse2,3, Abhishek C Sawant4, Calista Zhuo Yi Chan2,3, George Bazoukis5, Adrian Baranchuk6, Guangping Li1, Tong Liu1. 1. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. 2. Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 3. Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 5. Second Department of Cardiology, Evangelismos General Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece. 6. Division of Cardiology, Electrophysiology and Pacing, Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The electrocardiographic criteria currently available for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) are low in sensitivity. Thus, we compared the diagnostic performance of newly proposed electrocardiographic criteria to the existing criteria in a Chinese population. METHODS: A total of 235 consecutive hypertensive patients, hospitalized in our department between May 2017 and April 2018, were included. They were divided into two groups based on the gold standard echocardiogram: those with (n = 116) and without LVH (n = 119). The newly proposed ECG criteria were calculated by summating the amplitude of the deepest S wave (SD ) in any single lead and the S-wave amplitude of lead V4 (SV4 ). The area under the curve was calculated and compared against the sex-specific Cornell limb lead and Sokolow-Lyon criteria. RESULTS: ECG analysis of the cohort showed that the newly proposed criteria had the highest sensitivity in diagnosing LVH (male: 65.5%; female: 81%), followed by the Cornell limb lead criteria (male: 55.2%; female: 56.9%). The specificities of both sets of criteria were higher than 70%, with no significant differences between them. Receiver operator curve analysis showed an optimal cutoff of ≥2.1 mV for females (AUC: 0.832; 95% CI: 0.757-0.906) and ≥2.6 mV for males (AUC: 0.772; 95% CI: 0.687-0.856). CONCLUSION: The newly proposed SD + SV4 criteria provide an improved sensitivity for the ECG diagnosis of LVH compared to existing criteria, but its routine use will require further validation in larger populations.
BACKGROUND: The electrocardiographic criteria currently available for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) are low in sensitivity. Thus, we compared the diagnostic performance of newly proposed electrocardiographic criteria to the existing criteria in a Chinese population. METHODS: A total of 235 consecutive hypertensivepatients, hospitalized in our department between May 2017 and April 2018, were included. They were divided into two groups based on the gold standard echocardiogram: those with (n = 116) and without LVH (n = 119). The newly proposed ECG criteria were calculated by summating the amplitude of the deepest S wave (SD ) in any single lead and the S-wave amplitude of lead V4 (SV4 ). The area under the curve was calculated and compared against the sex-specific Cornell limb lead and Sokolow-Lyon criteria. RESULTS: ECG analysis of the cohort showed that the newly proposed criteria had the highest sensitivity in diagnosing LVH (male: 65.5%; female: 81%), followed by the Cornell limb lead criteria (male: 55.2%; female: 56.9%). The specificities of both sets of criteria were higher than 70%, with no significant differences between them. Receiver operator curve analysis showed an optimal cutoff of ≥2.1 mV for females (AUC: 0.832; 95% CI: 0.757-0.906) and ≥2.6 mV for males (AUC: 0.772; 95% CI: 0.687-0.856). CONCLUSION: The newly proposed SD + SV4 criteria provide an improved sensitivity for the ECG diagnosis of LVH compared to existing criteria, but its routine use will require further validation in larger populations.
Authors: Aditya Jain; Harikrishna Tandri; Darshan Dalal; Harjit Chahal; Elsayed Z Soliman; Ronald J Prineas; Aaron R Folsom; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Paolo Verdecchia; Fabio Angeli; Claudia Borgioni; Roberto Gattobigio; Gianni de Simone; Richard B Devereux; Carlo Porcellati Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: G Schillaci; P Verdecchia; C Borgioni; A Ciucci; M Guerrieri; I Zampi; M Battistelli; C Bartoccini; C Porcellati Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1994-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redon; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad; Josep Redon; Anna Dominiczak; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Peter M Nilsson; Michel Burnier; Margus Viigimaa; Ettore Ambrosioni; Mark Caufield; Antonio Coca; Michael Hecht Olsen; Roland E Schmieder; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Thierry C Gillebert; Michal Tendera; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Stefan D Anker; Johann Bauersachs; Jana Brguljan Hitij; Mark Caulfield; Marc De Buyzere; Sabina De Geest; Geneviève Anne Derumeaux; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Christian Funck-Brentano; Vjekoslav Gerc; Giuseppe Germano; Stephan Gielen; Herman Haller; Arno W Hoes; Jens Jordan; Thomas Kahan; Michel Komajda; Dragan Lovic; Heiko Mahrholdt; Michael Hecht Olsen; Jan Ostergren; Gianfranco Parati; Joep Perk; Jorge Polonia; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Lars Rydén; Yuriy Sirenko; Alice Stanton; Harry Struijker-Boudier; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Massimo Volpe; David A Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Qingmiao Shao; Lei Meng; Gary Tse; Abhishek C Sawant; Calista Zhuo Yi Chan; George Bazoukis; Adrian Baranchuk; Guangping Li; Tong Liu Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Jean Jacques Noubiap; Thomas A Agbaedeng; Ulrich Flore Nyaga; Clovis Nkoke; Ahmadou M Jingi Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Dragan B Djordjevic; Ivan S Tasic; Svetlana T Kostic; Bojana N Stamenkovic; Milan B Lovic; Nikola D Djordjevic; Goran P Koracevic; Dragan B Lovic Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Caio de Assis Moura Tavares; Nelson Samesima; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Lucas C Godoy; Eduardo Messias Hirano Padrão; Felippe Lazar Neto; Mirella Facin; Wilson Jacob-Filho; Michael E Farkouh; Carlos Alberto Pastore Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Hye-Bin Gwag; Su-Hyun Lee; Hyeon-Jun Kim; June-Soo Kim; Young-Keun On; Seung-Jung Park; Kyoung-Min Park Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.390