Background: The guidelines advocate, in patients with chest pain, comparison of the acute ECG with a previously made, non-ischemic ECG that serves as a reference, to corroborate the working diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Our approach of this serial comparison is to compute the differences between the ST vectors at the J point and 60 ms thereafter (∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60)) and between the ventricular gradient (VG) vectors (∆VG). In the current study, we investigate if reference ECGs remain valid in time.

Methods: We studied 6 elective non-ischemic ECGs (ECG0, ECG1, …, ECG5), 5 years apart, in 88 patients. Within each patient, serial comparisons were done 1) between all successive ECGs, and 2) between each of ECG1, ECG2, …, ECG5 and ECG0, computing, in addition to ∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60) and ∆VG, the difference in heart rates, ∆HR. Additionally, relevant clinical events and the diagnoses associated with each ECG were collected. Linear regression was used to assess trends in ∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60) and ∆VG; multiple linear regression was used to assess the influence of the clinical events and diagnoses on ∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60) and ∆VG.

Results: There were no trends in the differences between successive ECGs. Positive trends were seen with increasing time lapses between ECGs: ∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60) and ∆VG increased per year by 0.65 μV, 1.45 μV and 3.69 mV∙ms, respectively. Extrapolation to a time lapse of 0 yielded 50.92 μV, 36.63 μV and 20.91 mV∙ms for the short-term reproducibility of ∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60) and ∆VG, respectively. Multiple linear regression revealed that clinical variables could explain only 10%, 17% and 13% of the variability in ∆ST(J+0), ∆ST(J+60) and ∆VG, respectively.

Conclusion: With a view on ischemia detection thresholds in the order of magnitude of 58 μV for ∆ST and 26 mV·ms for ∆VG, our study suggests that it is important to have a recent ECG available for the detection of myocardial ischemia, as an "aged" ECG may have lost its validity as a reference.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2015.04.007DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

∆stj+0 ∆stj+60
28
∆stj+60 ∆vg
20
linear regression
12
… ecg5
8
successive ecgs
8
clinical events
8
events diagnoses
8
regression assess
8
∆vg multiple
8
multiple linear
8

Similar Publications

This study monitored the anti-spike-receptor-binding domain (RBD) and neutralizing antibodies induced by the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine in a cohort of 163 healthcare workers aged ≤60 years. We have taken advantage of two study groups, both of whom received the first two doses in the same time window, but Group 1 (54 HCWs) received the third dose 2 months before Group 2 (68 HCWs) did. The cohorts were monitored from the 12th day after the first vaccine dose up to 1 month after the third vaccine dose for a total of eight time points and about 1 year of surveillance (T1 = 12 days after the first dose; T2 = 10 days after the second dose; T3 = 1 month after the second dose; T4 = 3 months after the second dose; T5 = 4 months after the second dose; T6 = 5 months after the second dose; T7 = 7 months after the second dose; T8 = 1 month after the third dose for Group 1; T8* = 9 months after the second dose for Group 2; T9 = 1 month after the third dose for Group 2).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • The study evaluated the immune response to the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) like spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) compared to healthy subjects.
  • Antibody levels after vaccination were similar between NMD patients and healthy individuals, indicating that patients with these disorders have a comparable immune response to the vaccine.
  • The findings suggest that the BNT162b2 vaccine is both safe and effective for individuals with NMDs, with no significant differences in adverse reactions compared to healthy participants.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • Current UK vaccination policy targets high-risk individuals for future COVID-19 booster doses, but the specific groups that would benefit the most remain uncertain.
  • A study analyzed data from 30 million people across the UK to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes in those who completed their primary vaccination and received a booster dose of certain vaccines.
  • The findings highlighted that from late December 2021 to February 2022, only a small percentage of vaccinated individuals experienced severe COVID-19 outcomes, indicating the effectiveness of the vaccination program, especially when considering variations in risk factors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Despite vaccine development, the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing due to immunity-escaping variants of concern (VOCs). Estimations of vaccine-induced protective immunity against VOCs are essential for setting proper COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Methods: We performed plaque-reduction neutralizing tests (PRNTs) using sera from healthcare workers (HCWs) collected from baseline to six months after COVID-19 vaccination and from convalescent COVID-19 patients.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Scarce data have been reported about cellular immunity and longevity for different COVID-19 vaccination schedules. We carried out a prospective study enrolling 709 healthcare workers receiving two doses of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 single dose to compare humoral and cellular immunogenicity across 9 months. Higher SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody levels were observed among individuals with hybrid immunity with one dose of any vaccine in comparison to uninfected individuals receiving two doses (mRNA-1273: 20,145 vs 4295 U/mL; BNT162b2: 15,659 vs 1959 U/mL; ChAdOx1: 5344 vs 2230 U/mL), except for ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 heterologous schedule (12,380 U/mL).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!