Heart rhythm · 2016
ECG parameters predict left ventricular conduction delay in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Pastore Gianni, Maines Massimiliano, Marcantoni Lina, Zanon Francesco, Noventa Franco, Corbucci Giorgio, Baracca Enrico, Aggio Silvio, Picariello Claudio, Lanza Daniela, Rigatelli Gianluca, Carraro Mauro, Roncon Loris, Barold S Serge
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Estimating left ventricular electrical delay (Q-LV) from a 12-lead ECG may be important in evaluating cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of Q-LV interval on ECG configuration.
METHODS: One hundred ninety-two consecutive patients undergoing CRT implantation were divided electrocardiographically into 3 groups: left bundle branch block (LBBB), right bundle branch block (RBBB), and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD). The IVCD group was further subdivided into 81 patients with left (L)-IVCD and 15 patients with right (R)-IVCD (resembling RBBB, but without S wave in leads I and aVL). The Q-LV interval in the different groups and the relationship between ECG parameters and the maximum Q-LV interval were analyzed.
RESULTS: Patients with LBBB presented a long Q-LV interval (147.7 ± 14.6 ms, all exceeding cutoff value of 110 ms), whereas RBBB patients presented a very short Q-LV interval (75.2 ± 16.3 ms, all <110 ms). Patients with an IVCD displayed a wide range of Q-LV intervals. In L-IVCD, mid-QRS notching/slurring showed the strongest correlation with a longer Q-LV interval, followed, in decreasing order, by QRS duration >150 ms and intrinsicoid deflection >60 ms. Isolated mid-QRS notching/slurring predicted Q-LV interval >110 ms in 68% of patients. The R-IVCD group presented an unexpectedly longer Q-LV interval (127.0 ± 12.5 ms; 13/15 patients had Q-LV >110 ms).
CONCLUSION: Patients with LBBB have a very prolonged Q-LV interval. Mid-QRS notching in lateral leads strongly predicts a longer Q-LV interval in L-IVCD patients. Patients with R-IVCD constitute a subgroup of patients with a long Q-LV interval.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of Q-LV interval on ECG configuration.
METHODS: One hundred ninety-two consecutive patients undergoing CRT implantation were divided electrocardiographically into 3 groups: left bundle branch block (LBBB), right bundle branch block (RBBB), and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD). The IVCD group was further subdivided into 81 patients with left (L)-IVCD and 15 patients with right (R)-IVCD (resembling RBBB, but without S wave in leads I and aVL). The Q-LV interval in the different groups and the relationship between ECG parameters and the maximum Q-LV interval were analyzed.
RESULTS: Patients with LBBB presented a long Q-LV interval (147.7 ± 14.6 ms, all exceeding cutoff value of 110 ms), whereas RBBB patients presented a very short Q-LV interval (75.2 ± 16.3 ms, all <110 ms). Patients with an IVCD displayed a wide range of Q-LV intervals. In L-IVCD, mid-QRS notching/slurring showed the strongest correlation with a longer Q-LV interval, followed, in decreasing order, by QRS duration >150 ms and intrinsicoid deflection >60 ms. Isolated mid-QRS notching/slurring predicted Q-LV interval >110 ms in 68% of patients. The R-IVCD group presented an unexpectedly longer Q-LV interval (127.0 ± 12.5 ms; 13/15 patients had Q-LV >110 ms).
CONCLUSION: Patients with LBBB have a very prolonged Q-LV interval. Mid-QRS notching in lateral leads strongly predicts a longer Q-LV interval in L-IVCD patients. Patients with R-IVCD constitute a subgroup of patients with a long Q-LV interval.