S_aVR与R_aVL+S_V_3在诊断左心室肥大中的价值

目的探讨心电图（ECG）aVR导联的S波电压在诊断左心室肥大（LVH）中的价值。方法以超声心动图（UCG）结果为诊断标准，测量有LVH者100例（A组）及无LVH者100例（B组）的RaVL＋Sv3电压和SaVR电压，计算RaVL＋Sv3电压、SaVR电压及两者联用标准在诊断LVH中的敏感性、特异性及准确性。结果①SvVR电压诊断LVH的敏感性低（35％），特异性高（100％），准确性为67．5％；②RaVL＋Sv3电压诊断LVH的敏感性（60％）较SaVR电压的敏感性高，但特异性下降（84％），准确性为72％；③两者联用可提高诊断LVH的敏感性及准确性，特异性却无明显降低，分别为：69％、76．5％、84％；与QRS波电轴的关系：伴QRS波电轴左偏者，诊断LVH的敏感性显著提高，为77．9％，准确性与特异性相近，分别为：78．8％、82.3％；④两者联用的标准在成人各年龄组及不同体型者诊断LVH的价值差异无显著意义（x^2=3．021，x^2=1．916，P〉0．05）。结论SaVR标准诊断LVH具有临床实用价值，与RaVL＋SV3标准联用更理想，可弥补单用的不足。     

SaVR电压标准与RV5(6)+SV1电压标准联用诊断左室肥厚的价值

目的:探讨心电图aVR导联的S波电压在诊断左室肥厚(LVH)中的价值.方法:以超声心动图结果为诊断标准,测量LVH者60例(A组)及无LVH者40例(B组)的心电图RV5(6) SV1电压和SaVR电压,计算RV5(6) SV1电压标准和SaVR电压标准及两者联用标准诊断LVH的敏感性、特异性及准确性,并进行显著性检验.结果:① SaVR电压标准诊断LVH的敏感性低(36.6%),特异性高(100%),准确性为62.0%;② RV5(6) SV1电压标准诊断LVH的敏感性(58 3%)较SaVR电压标准高,但特异性下降(85.0%),准确性为69.0%;③两者联用诊断LVH的敏感性及准确性提高,特异性无明显降低,分别为:73.3%、78.0%、85.0%.两者联用中,A组有44例、B组有6例符合LVH的心电图标准.结论:SaVR电压标准诊断LVH具有实用价值,与RV5(6) SV1电压标准联用更理想,可弥补单用的不足.     

SavR电压标准与Rv5（6）＋Sv1电压标准联用诊断左室肥厚的价值

该文探讨心电图aVR导联的S波电压在诊断左室肥厚（LVH）中的价值。方法：以超声心动图结果为诊断标准，测量LVH者60例（A组）及无LVH者40例（B组）的心电图RV5（6），＋Sv1电压和SaVR电压，计算RV5（6）＋SV1电压标准和SaVR电压标准（心电图诊断LVH的标准：1）SaVR≥1．5mV。2）Rv5（6）＋Sv1男≥4．0mV，女性≥3．5mV及两者联用标准诊断LVH的敏感性、特异性及准确性，并进行显著性检验。结果：     

高血压左室肥厚心电综合电压诊断价值分析

目的 探讨心电图综合电压标准在高血压左室肥厚（LVH）中的诊断价值,为高血压LVH的筛查、诊断和疗效观察提供依据.方法 按照美国超声学会（ASE）推荐使用的操作常规（ASE Convention）检测90例中国高血压LVH患者心脏质量指数（UCG-LVMI）,心电电压各参数反复测3个心动周期,取均值,评价心电图综合电压标准在高血压LVH中的诊断价值.结果 根据Cornell新标准,90例中国高血压LVH患者真阳性发生率为60.0%（男性）和64.4%（女性）,假阴性发生率为40.0%（男性）和35.6%（女性）.临床诊断评价：敏感度RⅠ＋SⅢ 20.0%、RV5＋SV1 36.7%、Ravl＋SV3 62.2%,特异度 RⅠ＋SⅢ 100%、RV5＋SV1 94.5%、Ravl＋SV3 95.5%,准确度RⅠ＋SⅢ 64.0%、RV5＋SV1 69.5%、Ravl＋SV3 82.0%.结论 ECG-Cornell标准诊断高血压LVH的敏感度、特异度和准确度分别为62.2%、95.5%和82.0%.综合电压中Cornell电压诊断的敏感度、特异度和准确度最高,是高血压LVH筛查、诊断、预后的理想指标.     

心电图C值在左心室肥大诊断中的应用

目的 探讨心电图(ECG)新标准C值在诊断左心室肥大(LVH)中的价值.方法 以超声心动图(UCG)结果为诊断LVH标准,对无LVH的健康人200例(A组)、有LVH之非健康者100例(B组)及无LVH非健康者100例(C组)的各项心电指标进行分析.计算A组SaVR及C值的均数及标准差,按照统计学原理确定其正常值范围,大于正常值上限作为ECG诊断LVH的新标准,并与传统标准[1]、罗氏等标准[2]比较,检验不同标准对诊断LVH的敏感性、特异性及准确性.结果 ①A组SaVR的电压均值(mm)为9.25±2.65,正常值范围为4～14; C值电压均值(mm)为男性24.88±6.78、女性19.46±6.52,正常值(mm)范围男性11～38、女性7～32.以SaVR>14;C值男性>38、女性>32作为ECG诊断LVH的新标准.②SaVR、C值、传统标准及罗氏等[1]标准诊断LVH的价值比较:敏感性分别为37%、75%、52%、61%;特异性分别为99%、92%、70%、90%;准确性分别为68%、83.5%、60%、77.5%.③C值男性>38mm、女性>32mm同时有QRS波电轴左偏或ST～T改变者诊断LVH的敏感性、准确性及特异性分别为88.6%、89.7%、94.1%;C值男性>38mm、女性>32mm无QRS波电轴左偏或ST-T改变者诊断LVH的敏感性、准确性及特异性分别43.3%、78.8%、91.5%.④C值在成人各年龄组中及不同体型中诊断LVH的价值差异无统计学意义.结论 SaVR标准诊断LVH具有临床实用价值,新标准C值是传统标准及罗氏等标准很好的补充,可大大提高ECG诊断LVH的准确性.     

新的心电图诊断标准RLⅠ＋SV4和SD＋SV4对高血压合并左心室肥厚的诊断价值

目的]观察新的心电图诊断标准RLⅠ＋SV4、SD＋SV4是否适用于高血压合并左心室肥厚(LVH)的诊断,研究13项心电图诊断标准以及新标准与常用标准联合应用对于高血压合并LVH的临床价值。[方法]以超声心动图测定的左心室质量指数(LVMI)为标准,选取原发性高血压或者有高血压治疗史的住院患者280例,其中高血压合并LVH患者94例(LVH组),左心室正常患者186例(左心室正常组)。同步记录12导联心电图。绘制各种心电图诊断标准的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC),比较ROC的曲线下面积(AUC)。计算各种诊断标准的灵敏度和特异度。分析RLⅠ＋SV4、SD＋SV4及其联合目前公认的心电图诊断LVH标准对高血压患者合并LVH的诊断价值。[结果]单个心电图导联中,RLⅠ即Ⅰ导联的R波是较好预测LVH的因子之一(AUC＝0.63,P＜0.01)。两个导联振幅相加诊断LVH的研究中,RLⅠ＋SV4标准(AUC＝0.64,P＜0.01)的灵敏度为50%,特异度为71%;配对卡方检验显示RLⅠ＋SV4诊断LVH与金标准(LVMI判定LVH)之间无明显统计学差异。SD＋SV4标准(AUC＝0.59,P＜0.05)的灵敏度为31%,特异度为87%,其中SD波为12导联中拥有最大振幅的S波。RLⅠ＋SV4联合Sokolow-Lyon电压标准能够提高诊断高血压合并LVH的灵敏度,其灵敏度为59%,特异度为60%。[结论]RLⅠ＋SV4标准具有较高的AUC,适合高血压患者合并LVH的初步筛查;RLⅠ＋SV4联合Sokolow-Lyon电压标准能够提高诊断的灵敏度。SD＋SV4标准临床适用性没有RLⅠ＋SV4标准高。     

RavL+SV3电压在诊断左室肥大中临床价值的探讨

目的探讨心电图RavL-Sv3电压在诊断左室肥大(LVH)中的临床价值。方法测定观察组250例和对照组230例的心电图诊断LVH传统标准电压和RavL Sv3电压，计算传统标准和RaVL Sv3电压标准诊断LVH的敏感性、特异性、准确性并进行显著性检验(X2检验)。结果(!)与传统标准比较，RavL Sv3标准及两者联用时诊断LVH的敏感性、准确性显著提高，特异性相近；②随电轴左偏，RaVL-Sv3电压诊断LVH的敏感性升高更显著，而特异性、准确性相近。结论RaVL-Sv3标准及两者联用诊断LVH优于传统标准，并可弥补传统标准的某些不足。     

V_1、V_2、V_3的S波及Ⅰ、Ⅱ、aVL的R波之和在诊断左室肥大中的价值

目的探讨诊断左室肥大(LVH)新的心电图指标。方法以超声心动图测定的左室重量(LVM)及重量指数(LVMI)为对照,其诊断LVH的标准为>125g/m2(男),120g/m2(女),对100例正常健康人及111例患者进行了观察,对12导联QRS总振幅(∑QRS)、V1～V3导联的S波之和(∑SV1～V3)、Ⅰ、Ⅱ、aVL导联的R波之和(∑RⅠ、Ⅱ、aVL)及后两者之和(Z表示),分别进行了测定。寻找新指标的正常值范围以及以此标准为依据,诊断LVH的灵敏度、特异度、准确率。结果正常组中,∑QRS、∑SV1～V3、∑RⅠ、Ⅱ、aVL及Z值正常范围分别为77～175,11～38,5～23及22～54mm,以大于这些指标的正常值上限为标准,其诊断LVH灵敏度、特异度及准确率较传统指标明显提高,其中Z值>54mm灵敏度最高(86.54%),准确率最高(90.09%),而特异度仍保持在93.22%。结论LVH新的心电图指标具有一定诊断价值,其中Z>54mm最好。     

SaVR＋∑RaVL、aVF＋∑SV1～3（C值）诊断左心室肥大的价值

目的 探讨心电图(ECG)新标准C值在诊断左心室肥大(LVH)中的价值.方法 以超声心动图(UCG)结果为诊断LVH标准,对有LVH者100倒(A组)、无1VH者100例(B组)及正常人200例(C组)的各项心电指标进行分析.计算C组saVR及C值的均数及标准差,用统计学方法获取C值.并与传统标准[1]、张氏等标准[2]比较.结果 ①C组SaVR及C值的电压均值(mm)分别为9.25±2.65及39.6±8.1;正常范围4～14.及23～55.②SaVR、C值、传统标准及张氏等标准诊断1VH的敏感性分别为37%、88%、52%和77%;特异性为99%、92%、70%和89%;准确性为68%、90%、60%和83%.③C值>55mm同时有QRS波电轴左偏或ST-T改变者诊断1VH的敏感性、准确性、特异性为96.6%、96.1%、94%;C值>55mm无QRS波电轴左偏或ST-T改变者的敏感性、准确性、特异性为75%、86.1%、91%.④C值在成人各年龄组及不同体型者的诊断价值无差异.结论 SaVR标准的特异性较好,但敏感性差;而C值可弥补其他标准的某些不足.是诊断1VH的理想新指标.     

心电图RavL+Sv3电压诊断左室肥大价值探讨

目的探讨心电图RavL+Sv3电压在诊断左室肥大(LVH)中的临床价值。方法测定观察组250例和对照组230例的心电图传统标准电压和RavL+Sv3电压,计算其诊断LVH的敏感性、特异性、准确性。结果①与传统标准比较,RavL+Sv3标准及二者联用时,诊断LVH的敏感性、准确性显著提高,特异性相近;②随电轴左偏,RavL+Sv3电压诊断LVH的敏感性升高更显著,而特异性、准确性相近。结论RavL+Sv3标准及二者联用诊断LVH优于传统标准,并可弥补传统标准的某些不足。     

Performance of classic electrocardiographic criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy in an African population

ECG criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) have been almost exclusively elaborated and calibrated in white populations. Because several interethnic differences in ECG characteristics have been found, the applicability of these criteria to African individuals remains to be demonstrated. We therefore investigated the performance of classic ECG criteria for LVH detection in an African population. Digitized 12-lead ECG tracings were obtained from 334 African individuals randomly selected from the general population of the Republic of Seychelles (Indian Ocean). Left ventricular mass was calculated with M-mode echocardiography and indexed to body height. LVH was defined by taking the 95th percentile of body height-indexed LVM values in a reference subgroup. In the entire study sample, 16 men and 15 women (prevalence 9.3%) were finally declared to have LVH, of whom 9 were of the reference subgroup. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values for LVH were calculated for 9 classic ECG criteria, and receiver operating characteristic curves were computed. We also generated a new composite time-voltage criterion with stepwise multiple linear regression: weighted time-voltage criterion=(0.2366R(aVL)+0.0551R(V5)+0.0785S(V3)+ 0.2993T(V1))xQRS duration. The Sokolow-Lyon criterion reached the highest sensitivity (61%) and the R(aVL) voltage criterion reached the highest specificity (97%) when evaluated at their traditional partition value. However, at a fixed specificity of 95%, the sensitivity of these 10 criteria ranged from 16% to 32%. Best accuracy was obtained with the R(aVL) voltage criterion and the new composite time-voltage criterion (89% for both). Positive and negative predictive values varied considerably depending on the concomitant presence of 3 clinical risk factors for LVH (hypertension, age >/=50 years, overweight). Median positive and negative predictive values of the 10 ECG criteria were 15% and 95%, respectively, for subjects with none or 1 of these risk factors compared with 63% and 76% for subjects with all of them. In conclusion, the performance of classic ECG criteria for LVH detection was largely disparate and appeared to be lower in this population of East African origin than in white subjects. A newly generated composite time-voltage criterion might provide improved performance. The predictive value of ECG criteria for LVH was considerably enhanced with the integration of information on concomitant clinical risk factors for LVH.     

Validity of the ECG diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in normotensive and moderately hypertensive men when using the echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular mass index as reference.

The diagnostic validity of ECG criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was assessed in 100 men aged 22-64 (mean 47) years with moderate hypertension (Group 1) and 95 age-matched normotensive men (Group 2) using echocardiographic recordings of LV mass index (MI) as reference. A diagnosis of LVH was made in subjects with LVMI greater than or equal to 125 g/m2. Mean LVMI was 126 +/- 34 g/m2 in Group 1 vs. 100 +/- g/m2 in Group 2 (P less than 0.001), and the prevalence of LVH was 48% and 11% respectively (P less than 0.001). The mean ECG voltage according to Sokolow-Lyon (S-L) was 28 +/- 8 mm in Group 1 and 27 +/- 7 mm in Group 2 (NS); with 19% having LVH in Group 1 and 14% in Group 2 (NS). Using the Cornell criterion Group 1 had on average 15 +/- 6 mm vs. 12 +/- 5 mm in Group 2 (P less than 0.001), but only two Group 1 patients had LVH. In Group 2 a significant negative correlation between age and S-L voltage was found (r = 0.33, P less than 0.001). LVMI was not correlated with any of the two voltage criteria using linear regression analysis whereas multiple regression analysis revealed a weak, but significant correlation between LVMI and S-L voltage in Group 1 (t = 2.06, P = 0.04). No subject had LV strain pattern or LVH according to the Romhilt Estes point score system. In the assessment of possible LVH in normal or moderately hypertensive men less than 65-70 years of age, ECG has limited value.     

Left ventricular hypertrophy: relationship of anatomic, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic findings

Anatomic, echocardiographic and ECG findings of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) were compared in 34 subjects. Echocardiographic LV mass correlated weel with postmortem LV weight (r = 0.96) and accurately diagnosed LVH (sensitivity 93%, specificity 95%). In contrast, Romhilt-Estes (RE) point score and Sokolow-Lyon (SL) voltage criteria for ECG LVH were insensitive (50% and 21%, respectively) but specific (both 95%). RE correlated weakly with LV weight (r = 0.64), but SL did not. Echocardiographic LV mass was then compared with RE and SL in an unselected clinical series of 100 subjects, in 28 subjects with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and in 14 with severe aortic regurgitation (AR). Results in the clinical series were comparable to those in the necropsy series. In the AS and AR groups, with a high prevalence of LVH, the low sensitivity of RE point score and Sl criteria led to poor overall results. Analysis of individual ECG variables showed that most voltage information is contained in leads aVL and V1. Correction of voltage for distance from the left ventricle did not substantially improve results. Individual nonvoltage criteria were each nearly as sensitive as RE point score. We could not devise new ECG criteria that improved diagnostic results. We conclude that the ECG is specific but insensitive in recognition of LVH. Moreover, when true LVH prevalence is less than 10%, more false-positive than true-positive diagnoses will be obtained. M-mode echocardiographic LV mass is superior to ECG criteria for clinical diagnosis of LVH.     

Ethnic differences in left ventricular size and the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy among hypertensive patients vary with electrocardiographic criteria

The objective of this study was to investigate differences in electrocardiographic (ECG) parameters and the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) by various ECG criteria between different ethnic groups in west Birmingham, United Kingdom. In all, 380 consecutive patients, mean age 63 (7.8) years, 75 (20%) female patients assessed for inclusion in hypertension trials in a city centre teaching hospital were studied: 303 (80%) were Caucasian, 43 (11.4%) Afro-Caribbean and 32 (8.5%) South Asian. LVH was assessed using seven different criteria, with adjustment for age and body mass index (BMI). The performance of the various criteria were compared between the three ethnic groups. There were significant differences in the R-wave voltage in lead aVL, the Sokolow-Lyon voltage and in criteria based on limb lead voltages alone between the three ethnic groups. Highest ECG voltages were seen in Afro-Caribbeans, and this translated into a significantly higher prevalence of LVH when assessed by the R-wave in aVL and the Sokolow-Lyon criteria. There were no significant differences between Caucasians and South Asians. These differences were abolished after adjustment for age and BMI. There was no difference in the Cornell voltage or its derivatives in men between the three ethnic groups. In conclusion, apparent differences in electrocardiographic voltage and the prevalence of LVH between ethnic groups are dependent upon the criteria chosen and may simply be secondary to differences in BMI. Unlike Afro-Caribbean patients, South Asians do not demonstrate significant differences in ECG voltage compared with Caucasians.     

心电图改变对急性下壁心肌梗死相关血管的预测价值

目的:对急性下壁心肌梗死患者的心电图资料进行回顾性研究,分析和比较心电图改变与冠状动脉造影及临床特点的对应性关系。探讨体表心电图改变对急性下壁心肌梗死患者的临床价值。方法:选取86例急性下壁心肌梗死患者,根据冠状动脉造影结果分为右冠状动脉(RCA)病变组和左冠状动脉(LCA)病变组。对比分析其心电图改变与冠状动脉造影结果及临床特点。结果:Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、aVR导联ST段及aVL导联波形改变对诊断梗死相关血管具有重要价值;V3与Ⅲ导联ST段改变比值预测梗死相关血管部位具有重要价值;伴aVR导联ST段压低患者病情重;伴胸前导联ST段压低者病情重、并发症发生率明显增高。结论:心电图对诊断下壁急性心肌梗死相关血管及其临床特点具有重要的预测价值。     

The effect of reduced intercellular coupling on electrocardiographic signs of left ventricular hypertrophy

Background

The electrocardiographic (ECG) diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is based on the assumption that QRS voltage increases with left ventricular mass. However, most of patients with echocardiographically detected LVH do not have increased QRS voltage. Reduced intercellular coupling has been observed in LVH patients and animal models. The purpose of this study was to show that this uncoupling can explain relatively low QRS voltage in LVH patients.

Methods

Electrocardiograms and vectorcardiograms (VCG) were simulated with a realistic large-scale computer model of the human heart and torso that reliably represented the effects of reduced coupling on both propagation and ECG voltage.

Results

Uncoupling reduced QRS voltage in all leads except aVL, reflecting a decrease in vector amplitude as well as a leftward axis deviation that suggested left anterior fascicular block.

Conclusions

Low QRS voltage does not necessarily contradict a diagnosis of LVH but may be an indication for electrical uncoupling. The diagnostic value of this “relative voltage deficit” needs to be demonstrated in clinical studies.     

起源于主动脉窦内反复单形室性心动过速和/或频发室性早搏的心电图特征及射频消融治疗

探讨起源于主动脉窦内的反复单形室性心动过速(简称室速)和/或频发室性早搏(简称室早)的心电图特点和射频消融治疗。分析35例该类患者的室速和频发室早的心电图、心内电生理检查和射频消融治疗情况。结果:室性心律失常起源于左冠状动脉窦(简称左冠窦)的30例、无冠状动脉窦3例和主动脉根部左冠窦下2例。左冠窦的心电图特点:Ⅰ和aVL导联为rs、rS或QS波形,Ⅱ、Ⅲ和aVF导联为R波形,胸导联R波移行区在V2或V3导联,V5、V6导联为高振幅R波,无S波;V2导联R高度/S高度比值1.29±0.36。主动脉根部左冠窦下起源的心电图特点:和左冠窦起源室性心律失常的心电图特点基本相同,但V5、V6导联有S波。无冠状动脉窦起源的心电图特点:Ⅰ和aVL导联为Rs或R波形,Ⅱ、Ⅲ和aVF导联为R波形,胸导联R波移行区在V3导联。34例消融成功,手术操作时间65~120min,X光曝露时间12~30min。1例出现冠状动脉前降支急性闭塞。随访2~53个月,无复发病例。结论:起源于主动脉窦内的室速和/或频发室早有其独特的心电图表现,射频消融能安全、有效地根治此类心律失常。     

Electrocardiographic correlates of ultrasonically increased septal,left ventricular posterior wall and left ventricular internal dimensions

The electrocardiograms (ECG) of 64 subjects who exhibited an echocardiographically demonstrable increase in thickness of the interventricular septum and left ventricular posterior wall (Group 1,22 patients), isolated left ventricular internal dimension (Group 2, 26 patients), combined wall thickness and chamber diameter (Group 3, 2 patients), and septal thickness, (Group 4, asymmetric septal hypertrophy, 14 patients) were reviewed in order to determine sensitivity of ECG criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) proposed in 1949 by Sokolow and Lyon (13), in 1968 by Romhilt and Estes (14), and in 1973 the New York Heart Association (15). Relative sensitivity of the three methods was as follows: Total group, NYHA (77%) > Sokolow and Lyon (67%) > Romhilt and Estes (58%); Group 1, NYHA (91%) > Sokolow and Lyon (73%) > Romhilt and Estes (54%); Group 2, NYHA and Sokolow and Lyon (65%) > Romhilt and Estes (61%); Group 4, NYHA (79%) > Sokolow and Lyon (64%) > Romhilt and Estes (57%). We conclude that (1) ECG criteria of the NYHA for the diagnosis of LVH correlate best with an increase of ultrasonically determined septal, left ventricular posterior wall or left ventricular internal dimensions when compared with voltage criteria of Sokolow and Lyon and the point score system of Romhilt and Estes; and (2) isolated increase of left ventricular internal dimension, in the absence of thickened septum or posterior left ventricular wall, frequently results in ECG criteria compatible with the diagnosis of LVH.     

Eelectrocardiographic correlates of ultrasonically increased septal, left ventricular posterior wall and left ventricular internal dimensions.

The electrocardiograms (ECG) of 64 subjects who exhibited an echocardiographically demonstrable increase in thickness of the interventricular septum and left ventricular posterior wall (Group 1, 22 patients), isolated left ventricular internal dimension (Group 2,26 patients), combined wall thickness and chamber diameter (Group 3, 2 patients), and septal thickness, (Group 4, asymmetric septal hypertrophy, 14 patients) were reviewed in order to determine sensitivity of ECG criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) proposed in 1949 by Sokolow and Lyon (13), in 1968 by Romhilt and Estes (14), and in 1973 the New York Heart Association (15). Relative sensitivity of the three methods was as follows: Total group, NYHA (77%) greater than Sokolow and Lyon (67%) greater than Romhilt and Estes (58%); Group 1, NYHA (91%) greater than Sokolow and Lyon (73%) greater than Romhilt and Estes (54%); Group 2, NYHA and Sokolow and Lyon (65%) greater than Romhilt and Estes (61%); Group 4, NYHA (79%) greater than Sokolow and Lyon (64%) greater than Romhilt and Estes (57%). We conclude that 1)ECG criteria of the NYHA for the diagnosis of LVH correlate best with an increase of ultrasonically determined septal, left ventricular posterior wall or left ventricular internal dimensions when compared with voltage criteria of Sokolow and Lyon and the point score system of Romhilt and Estes; and 2) isolated increase of left ventricular internal dimension, in the absence of thickened septum or posterior left ventricular wall, frequently results in ECG criteria compatible with the diagnosis of LVH.