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 · 2012
Prognostic significance of electrocardiographic Q-waves in a low-risk population.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Godsk Peter, Jensen Jan Skov, Abildstrøm Steen Z, Appleyard Merete, Pedersen Sune, Mogelvang Rasmus
Аннотация
AIMS: In individuals without known heart disease, electrocardiographic Q-waves predict a poor prognosis. We aimed to examine whether prognostic information can be derived from the size and location of Q-waves in persons from the general population without known ischaemic heart disease (IHD) or heart failure (HF).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) of 5381 persons without known IHD or HF from the 4th Copenhagen City Heart Study were reviewed and Q-waves were classified according to their size and location. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the associations of Q-waves adjusted for age, hypertension, diabetes, and estimated glomerular filtration rate with the risk of the combined endpoint of death and hospitalization for IHD. During a median of 7.8 years of follow-up, 1003 persons reached the combined endpoint. One hundred and fourteen (2.1%) had pathological Q-waves, of whom 44% suffered from an event compared with 18% from the control group, P< 0.001. Persons with hypertension, diabetes, and impaired renal function were more likely to have Q-waves. Even small Q-waves (i.e. Minnesota code 1.2.x-1.3.x) were associated with a poor prognosis, hazard ratio (HR) 1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-2.0; P< 0.05], though not as grave as large Q-waves (i.e. Minnesota code 1.1.x) HR 2.8 (95%CI: 1.6-5.0; P< 0.001). Conversely, there was no difference in the outcome of patients with anteriorly HR 1.6 (95%CI: 1.1-2.4) vs. posteriorly HR 1.5 (95%CI: 0.9-2.4) located Q-waves (P= 0.85).
CONCLUSION: In the general population without known IHD or HF, even small Q-waves in the ECG are associated with a poor prognosis.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) of 5381 persons without known IHD or HF from the 4th Copenhagen City Heart Study were reviewed and Q-waves were classified according to their size and location. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the associations of Q-waves adjusted for age, hypertension, diabetes, and estimated glomerular filtration rate with the risk of the combined endpoint of death and hospitalization for IHD. During a median of 7.8 years of follow-up, 1003 persons reached the combined endpoint. One hundred and fourteen (2.1%) had pathological Q-waves, of whom 44% suffered from an event compared with 18% from the control group, P< 0.001. Persons with hypertension, diabetes, and impaired renal function were more likely to have Q-waves. Even small Q-waves (i.e. Minnesota code 1.2.x-1.3.x) were associated with a poor prognosis, hazard ratio (HR) 1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-2.0; P< 0.05], though not as grave as large Q-waves (i.e. Minnesota code 1.1.x) HR 2.8 (95%CI: 1.6-5.0; P< 0.001). Conversely, there was no difference in the outcome of patients with anteriorly HR 1.6 (95%CI: 1.1-2.4) vs. posteriorly HR 1.5 (95%CI: 0.9-2.4) located Q-waves (P= 0.85).
CONCLUSION: In the general population without known IHD or HF, even small Q-waves in the ECG are associated with a poor prognosis.