AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluates the effectiveness of five electrocardiographic criteria for diagnosing left ventricular hypertrophy in patients, noting the association of increased left ventricular mass with cardiovascular disease risks.
  • A total of 135 patients were initially analyzed, but 46 were excluded due to various health conditions, leaving 89 eligible patients whose electrocardiograms were assessed using established criteria.
  • Results showed low sensitivity across most criteria, with Rodríguez Padial showing the highest sensitivity but very low specificity, indicating that these diagnostic methods are not sufficient alone and must be considered along with a complete medical assessment.

Article Abstract

Introduction And Objectives: Because left ventricular mass is associated with an increase in the risk of morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular diseases in the general population having the electrocardiogram as an accessible and inexpensive method for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy, we decided to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of 5 electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy and to compare the results of the original authors to ours.

Patients And Methods: 135 patients were evaluated; 46 patients were excluded by the following criteria: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, complete left or right bundle branch block, cardiovascular ischemic disease or Wolf-Parkinson-White Syndrome. 89 patients remained and had an electrocardiogram performed applying the following criteria: Romhilt-Estes Point-Score system. Sokolow-Lyon (SV1 + RV5 or V6 > 3.5 mV) and (RaVL > 1.1 mV), Cornell and Rodríguez Padial. Left ventricular hypertrophy was defined by the Penn Convention Criteria.

Results: In our study we obtained the following results: a) Romhilt-Estes had a sensitivity of 12% and a specificity of 87%; b) Sokolow-Lyon (SV1 + RV5 or V6) had a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 79%; c) Sokolow-Lyon (RaVL) has a sensitivity of 18% and a specificity of 92%; d) Cornel had a sensitivity of 31% and a specificity of 87%, and e) Rodríguez Padial had a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 8%. There are similarities between our results and the authors's original ones. However, there are significant statistical differences between them (p < or = 0.01).

Conclusion: Our conclusion is that these criteria have a low diagnostic value in the isolated interpretation of patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, and we need to integrate them with the whole medical history and physical examination.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0300-8932(97)73173-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

left ventricular
24
ventricular hypertrophy
20
sensitivity specificity
8
cornell rodríguez
8
diagnosis left
8
sokolow-lyon sv1
8
sv1 rv5
8
rodríguez padial
8
specificity 87%
8
specificity
7

Similar Publications

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!