-
Something wrong with this record ?
Clinical value of different QRS-T angle expressions
K. Hnatkova, J. Seegers, P. Barthel, T. Novotny, P. Smetana, M. Zabel, G. Schmidt, M. Malik,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
NLK
Free Medical Journals
from 1999 to 1 year ago
PubMed Central
from 2008
Open Access Digital Library
from 1999-01-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 1999-01-01
Oxford Journals Open Access Collection
from 1999-01-01
- MeSH
- Action Potentials * MeSH
- Defibrillators, Implantable MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Electric Countershock instrumentation MeSH
- Electrocardiography * standards MeSH
- Risk Assessment MeSH
- Myocardial Infarction diagnosis mortality physiopathology MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Death, Sudden, Cardiac epidemiology MeSH
- Predictive Value of Tests MeSH
- Prognosis MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Risk Factors MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Arrhythmias, Cardiac diagnosis mortality physiopathology surgery MeSH
- Heart Rate * MeSH
- Case-Control Studies MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
Aims: Increased spatial angle between QRS complex and T wave loop orientations has repeatedly been shown to predict cardiac risk. However, there is no consensus on the methods for the calculation of the angle. This study compared the reproducibility and predictive power of three most common ways of QRS-T angle assessment. Methods and results: Electrocardiograms of 352 healthy subjects, 941 survivors of acute myocardial infarction (MI), and 605 patients recorded prior to the implantation of automatic defibrillator [implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)] were used to obtain QRS-T angle measurements by the maximum R to T (MRT), area R to T (ART), and total cosine R to T (TCRT) methods. The results were compared in terms of physiologic reproducibility and power to predict mortality in the cardiac patients during 5-year follow-up. Maximum R to T results were significantly less reproducible compared to the other two methods. Among both survivors of acute MI and ICD recipients, TCRT method was statistically significantly more powerful in predicting mortality during follow-up. Among the acute MI survivors, increased spatial QRS-T angle (TCRT assessment) was particularly powerful in predicting sudden cardiac death with the area under the receiver operator characteristic of 78% (90% confidence interval 63-90%). Among the ICD recipients, TCRT also predicted mortality significantly among patients with prolonged QRS complex duration when the spatial orientation of the QRS complex is poorly defined. Conclusion: The TCRT method for the assessment of spatial QRS-T angle appears to offer important advantages in comparison to other methods of measurement. This approach should be included in future clinical studies of the QRS-T angle. The TCRT method might also be a reasonable candidate for the standardization of the QRS-T angle assessment.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19028727
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20190815105322.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190813s2018 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1093/europace/eux246 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29016907
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Hnatkova, Katerina $u National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, Dovehouse Street, London, UK.
- 245 10
- $a Clinical value of different QRS-T angle expressions / $c K. Hnatkova, J. Seegers, P. Barthel, T. Novotny, P. Smetana, M. Zabel, G. Schmidt, M. Malik,
- 520 9_
- $a Aims: Increased spatial angle between QRS complex and T wave loop orientations has repeatedly been shown to predict cardiac risk. However, there is no consensus on the methods for the calculation of the angle. This study compared the reproducibility and predictive power of three most common ways of QRS-T angle assessment. Methods and results: Electrocardiograms of 352 healthy subjects, 941 survivors of acute myocardial infarction (MI), and 605 patients recorded prior to the implantation of automatic defibrillator [implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)] were used to obtain QRS-T angle measurements by the maximum R to T (MRT), area R to T (ART), and total cosine R to T (TCRT) methods. The results were compared in terms of physiologic reproducibility and power to predict mortality in the cardiac patients during 5-year follow-up. Maximum R to T results were significantly less reproducible compared to the other two methods. Among both survivors of acute MI and ICD recipients, TCRT method was statistically significantly more powerful in predicting mortality during follow-up. Among the acute MI survivors, increased spatial QRS-T angle (TCRT assessment) was particularly powerful in predicting sudden cardiac death with the area under the receiver operator characteristic of 78% (90% confidence interval 63-90%). Among the ICD recipients, TCRT also predicted mortality significantly among patients with prolonged QRS complex duration when the spatial orientation of the QRS complex is poorly defined. Conclusion: The TCRT method for the assessment of spatial QRS-T angle appears to offer important advantages in comparison to other methods of measurement. This approach should be included in future clinical studies of the QRS-T angle. The TCRT method might also be a reasonable candidate for the standardization of the QRS-T angle assessment.
- 650 12
- $a akční potenciály $7 D000200
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a srdeční arytmie $x diagnóza $x mortalita $x patofyziologie $x chirurgie $7 D001145
- 650 _2
- $a studie případů a kontrol $7 D016022
- 650 _2
- $a náhlá srdeční smrt $x epidemiologie $7 D016757
- 650 _2
- $a defibrilátory implantabilní $7 D017147
- 650 _2
- $a elektrická defibrilace $x přístrojové vybavení $7 D004554
- 650 12
- $a elektrokardiografie $x normy $7 D004562
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 12
- $a srdeční frekvence $7 D006339
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a infarkt myokardu $x diagnóza $x mortalita $x patofyziologie $7 D009203
- 650 _2
- $a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
- 650 _2
- $a prognóza $7 D011379
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a hodnocení rizik $7 D018570
- 650 _2
- $a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
- 650 _2
- $a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Seegers, Joachim $u Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, Regensburg, Germany.
- 700 1_
- $a Barthel, Petra $u Innere Medizin I, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, Munich, Germany.
- 700 1_
- $a Novotny, Tomas $u Department of internal medicine and cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Masaryk University, Jihlavska 20, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Smetana, Peter $u Medizinische Abteilung mit Kardiologie, Wilhelminenspital der Stadt Wien, Montleartstraße 37, Vienna, Austria.
- 700 1_
- $a Zabel, Markus $u Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, Heart Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, Göttingen, Germany.
- 700 1_
- $a Schmidt, Georg $u Innere Medizin I, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, Munich, Germany. DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany.
- 700 1_
- $a Malik, Marek $u National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, Dovehouse Street, London, UK.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00149837 $t Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology $x 1532-2092 $g Roč. 20, č. 8 (2018), s. 1352-1361
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29016907 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190813 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20190815105550 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1433876 $s 1067187
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 20 $c 8 $d 1352-1361 $e 20180801 $i 1532-2092 $m Europace $n Europace $x MED00149837
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20190813