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。     

心电图R_(aVL)+S_(aVR)+S_(v3)诊断左心室肥大的价值

1 对象与方法 2006-01至2008-06选取健康组200例,男100例,女100例,平均年龄(54.0±10.4)岁),均经病史、体检、X线胸片、心电图等证实无心肺疾病.患者组200例,男107例,女93例,平均年龄(58.56±9.7)岁,其中高血压病58例,冠心病40例,风湿性心脏病10例,心肌病5例、甲状腺机能亢进性心脏病5例,无心脏病史82例.两组年龄、性别差异无统计学意义(t=1.78,χ~2=2.08,P>0.05).     

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.     

左室肥大心电图诊断重订新标准的探讨

为提高左室肥大心电图诊断的敏感性和准确率,采用超声法对照研究340例16项常用传统心电图左室肥大标准的诊断价值,发现多数单项标准敏感性和准确性不甚理想.提出“新综合记分法”(∑QRS≥175mm、Rv_6>Rv_5、PTFV_1≤-0.04mm·s、QRS≥0.16s各记3分,ST-T改变、电轴左偏 29°——30°各记2分,总记分≥5判为左室肥大),诊断的敏感性和准确性可分别提高至66%(P<0.05)和81%(P<0.01).     

Cornell指数和Sokolow指数诊断左室肥大的价值

比较和评估Cornell指数与传统Sokolow指数诊断左室肥大(LVH)的价值,探索进一步提高心电图诊断性能的可能性。以1999～2003年我院体检及住院患者为研究对象,共499例。依据超声心动图测定的左室重量指数(LVMI)分为正常组(男210例、女83例)和LVH组(男126例、女80例)。计算Cornell指数和Sokolow指数的诊断灵敏度、特异度和准确率,以及不同特异度条件下的电压阈值及其相应的灵敏度和准确率。结果:两指数诊断男、女LVH的特异度大体相当,均>95%;男、女性Cornell指数的灵敏度和准确率高于Sokolow指数。把Cornell指数的特异度降为95%时,其诊断准确率可由80%提高到82%;调整电压阈值,Sokolow指数的最高诊断准确率为84%,但其特异度仅为85%。结论:Cornell指数诊断LVH的性能优于Sokolow指数;适当调整电压阈值标准可进一步改善两指数的心电图诊断性能,但改善的空间有限。     

SaVR与RaVL+SV3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。     

扩张型心肌病左室肥大心电图诊断指标的探讨

目的探讨扩张型心肌病(DCM)左室肥大心电图(ECG)指标诊断的敏感性、特异性、准确性.方法选取52例DCM患者为观察组,60例左室内径正常者为对照组,以二维超声心动图诊断DCM为标准,分析ECG传统左室肥大诊断条件诊断DCM的敏感性、特异性和准确率.结果RV6＞RV5的敏感性为92.30%,特异性93.33%.准确率92.85%,为最好指标;其次为R/3V5＞RV5(R/3V6＞RV6),它结合QRS波群形态诊断DCM的敏感性为89.58%,特异性94.43%,准确率91.92%,与其他诊断条件相比差异显著(P＜0.05).结论ECG诊断DCM以RV6＞RV5,R/3V5＞RV5(R/3V6＞RV6)二个指标最好,尤其是RV6＞RV5.     

ΣSv1～3加ΣRⅠ、Ⅱ、aVL电压对左心室肥厚的诊断价值

由于心电图 (ECG)传统电压标准诊断左心室肥厚 (LVH)的敏感性低 ,长期以来 ,许多研究不断探讨出新的标准〔1～ 3〕。本文以诊断LVH的超声心动图 (UCG)标准结果作为对照 ,采用张绪洪等〔2〕提出的电压新标准 ,并结合ST T及其他指标的改变 ,分析 2 83例患者的ECG ,并与传统标准比较 ,检验其对LVH的诊断价值。1　对象与方法1 .1 　 对象本院门诊及住院患者共 2 83例 ,男 1 69例 ,女1 1 4例 ,年龄 2 4～ 75 ( 4 7.3± 9.5 )岁。全部受检者在作UCG的 3d内作仰卧常规 1 2导联ECG检查。排除了心肌梗死、预激综合征、室性心律、束支传导…     

左室肥厚常用诊断方法比较及与心内结构的关系

左室肥厚常用诊断方法比较及与心内结构的关系陈恩赐（安徽省建委医院心超室合肥２３００２２）关键词心肌肥厚超声心动描记术心电描记术Ｘ射线左心室肥厚（ＬＶＨ）常见于高血压性心脏病及其它心脏疾患。近年来发现高血压合并ＬＶＨ的猝死率、冠心病、心肌梗死、心律失常...     

心电图左室肥厚与脑卒中发病风险及其预后的关系

目的:评价在我国人群中心电图左室肥厚对脑卒中(包括动脉粥样硬化性血栓性脑梗死、腔隙性脑梗死、脑出血亚型)发病的风险和脑卒中患者长期心脑血管不良事件发生的风险。方法:采用多中心病例对照研究分析心电图左室肥厚与脑卒中的关系,并对脑卒中患者进行前瞻性随访,利用COX生存回归模型分析左室肥厚对心脑血管不良事件的影响。结果:共1874例初发脑卒中患者和1879例对照入选。在校正了性别、年龄、体质指数、血压、血糖、血脂因素后,心电图左室肥厚显著增加脑卒中发病的风险(P0.01),脑卒中以及动脉粥样硬化性血栓性脑梗死亚型、腔隙性脑梗死亚型、脑出血亚型校正后的OR值分别是2.2(95%CI:1.6～3.0)、2.2(95%CI:1.6～3.1)、1.8(95%CI:1.2～2.7)、2.0(95%CI:1.3～3.0)。随访0.1～6.1(3.7±1.4)年,在校正了混杂因素后,心电图左室肥厚显著增加脑卒中患者心脑血管不良事件发生的风险(RR:1.36,95%CI:1.04～1.76,P0.05)。结论:心电图左室肥厚不仅是我国脑卒中患者发病的独立危险因素,而且还是脑卒中患者预后不良的独立预测因素。     

老年男性心电图Cornell电压标准及其应用价值

目的 探讨老年男性心电图Comell电压标准及其诊断老年男性左室肥厚的价值.方法 回顾性分析北京医院自1990年来进行尸体解剖的老年男性患者资料,排除心电图ORS波时限≥0.12 s及起搏心电图的患者.测量死亡前3个月内标准12导联心电图QRS波振幅,分析老年男性Comell、Sokolow-Lyon电压值与左室前壁厚度的相关性.计算老年男性无器质性心脏病组Comell电压值的均数及其97.5%的上限值,分析老年男性心电图Comell电压标准诊断老年男性左室肥厚的敏感性、准确性.结果 老年男性心电图Comell、Sokolow-Lyon电压值与左室前壁厚度相关.老年男性无器质性心脏病组心电图Sv3+RaVL平均值为(1.32±0.79)mV,以其97.5%的上限值2.9 mV为Comell标准诊断老年男性左室肥厚的敏感性、准确性分别为34.3%、77.5%,高于Sokolow-Lyon标准.结论 心电图Comell电压标准诊断中国老年男性左室肥厚的界值可采用2.9 mV,其诊断老年男性左室肥厚的敏感性、准确性高于Sokolow-Lyon标准.     

壮族原发性高血压左心室肥厚患者不同心电图诊断指标的应用价值

目的探讨不同心电图诊断指标在壮族原发性高血压患者左心室肥厚临床诊断中的应用价值。方法选择壮族原发性高血压患者100例,以超声心动图检查所得到的左心室质量指数作为左心室肥厚诊断的参考标准,验证Cornell指数、Sokolow-Lyon指数和Romhilt-Estes积分3种心电图诊断指标的临床应用价值。结果以超声心动图诊断的左心室肥厚结果为标准,3种心电图指标均存在敏感性低,特异性高的特点;男性的诊断价值均大于女性;Romhilt-Estes积分高于Cornell指数和Sokolow-Lyon指数(P0.05)。结论 3种心电图指标可以作为诊断左心室肥厚的常规方法。     

aVR 导联 ST 段抬高对冠脉左主干和／或3支血管病变的诊断价值

严重的冠脉病变包括冠脉左主干（left main coronary artery,LMCA）急性完全闭塞、次全闭塞以及3支血管病变（3-vessel disease,3-vd）。尽管 LMCA 急性完全闭塞患者能生存到达医院者很少,但 aVR 导联 ST 段抬高对其诊断的特异性和准确率均超过80％。对 LMCA 急性次全闭塞及3-vd 患者,aVR 导联 ST 段抬高的诊断价值高于心电图的任何其他单一或多个导联。aVR 导联 ST 段抬高幅度越大、持续时间越长,患者的病情就越重。本文对 aVR 导联 ST段抬高的诊断标准、电生理机制及国外研究进展进行综述。     

Body surface mapping criteria for diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy associated with complete right bundle branch block

The standard electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy are unreliable in patients with complete right bundle branch block. This study was undertaken to formulate criteria for diagnosing these patients by using body surface mapping. The echocardiographic left ventricular mass was calculated by the Penn method from M-mode measurements. Of 56 patients, 27 were defined as having left ventricular hypertrophy with a left ventricular mass of 215 g or more. Isopotential and isointegral maps of the QRS complex were observed. The QRS isointegral maps were separated into two parts at the end of the downstroke of the initial R wave of vector spatial magnitude. The body surface mapping criteria with the highest sensitivity were EPmax (maximum of early part of the QRS) 45 μV·s or greater (sensitivity 93%, specificity 90%), EPmax/d (EPmax averaged by EP duration) 0.8 mV or greater (sensitivity 93%, specificity 97%), and Max (initial maximum) 2.2 mV or greater (sensitivity 89%, specificity 90%). These results suggest that body surface mapping is a useful technique in diagnosing patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and right bundle branch block.     

血管紧张素转换酶基因多态性与高血压左室肥厚的关系

目的探讨血管紧张素转换酶（ＡＣＥ）基因多态性与高血压左室肥厚的关系。方法对１０４例高血压病患者，采用二维引导下的Ｍ型超声心动图检测有无左室肥厚（ＬＶＨ），同时作２４小时动态血压监测，采血检测ＡＣＥ基因多态性（ＰＣＲ方法）。１１３例正常人作基因频率检测。结果（１）高血压ＬＶＨ（＋）与ＬＶＨ（－）两组动态血压指标除夜间平均ＳＢＰ、平均动脉压（ＭＡＰ）差异有显著性外，２４小时及白天平均ＳＢＰ、ＤＢＰ、ＭＡＰ和夜间平均ＤＢＰ两组间差异均无显著性。（２）ＬＶＨ（＋）组Ｉ基因频率明显高于ＬＶＨ（－）组，ＬＶＨ（＋）组Ｉ基因型明显高于ＬＶＨ（－）组。（３）１１３例正常人基因型频率分布：Ｉ为０．５８，Ｄ为０．４２。结论本研究提示，ＡＣＥ基因多态性与左室肥厚明显相关，Ｉ基因型者似更易发生左室肥厚。ＡＣＥ基因型频率分布东方人与西方人不同。     

Evaluation of the electrocardiographic criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy with use of three-dimensional echocardiography

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a common condition that carries an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Use of ECG in detection of LVH is limited because of the reported low sensitivity. Conventional echocardiographic techniques used as the standard for estimating left ventricular (LV) mass have limitations related to the position of the image plane and shape of the ventricle. Three-dimensional echocardiography is free of these limitations and therefore is more accurate. We hypothesized that accuracy of ECG criteria for LVH would improve when LV mass was assessed by three-dimensional echocardiography. RESULTS: For most of the criteria, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy improved when LV mass was assessed by three-dimensional echocardiography. Two-dimensional echocardiography significantly overestimated LV mass as compared with the three-dimensional method. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the ECG criteria improved when LV mass was estimated by three-dimensional echocardiography. This improvement may be attributed at least in part to superior accuracy of three-dimensional measurements.     

Evaluation of the electrocardiogram RV5/V6 criteria in the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in marathon runners

To assess the value of electrocardiogram (ECG) RV5/V6 criteria for diagnosing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in marathons. A total of 112 marathon runners who met the requirements for “Class A1” events certified by the Chinese Athletics Association in Changzhou City were selected, and their general clinical information was collected. ECG examinations were performed using a Fukuda FX7402 Cardimax Comprehensive Electrocardiograph Automatic Analyser, whereas routine cardiac ultrasound examinations were performed using a Philips EPIQ 7C echocardiography system. Real-time 3-dimensional echocardiography (RT-3DE) was performed to acquire 3-dimensional images of the left ventricle and to calculate the left ventricular mass index (LVMI). According to the LVMI criteria of the American Society of Echocardiography for the diagnosis of LVH, the participants were divided into an LVMI normal group (n = 96) and an LVH group (n = 16). The correlation between the ECG RV5/V6 criteria and LVH in marathon runners was analysed using multiple linear regression stratified by sex and compared with the Cornell (SV3 + RaVL), modified Cornell (SD + RaVL), Sokolow–Lyon (SV1 + RV5/V6), Peguero–Lo Presti (SD + SV4), SV1, SV3, SV4, and SD criteria. In marathon runners, the ECG parameters SV3 + RaVL, SD + RaVL, SV1 + RV5/V6, SD + SV4, SV3, SD, and RV5/V6 were able to identify LVH (all p < .05). When stratified by sex, linear regression analysis revealed that a significantly higher number of ECG RV5/V6 criteria were evident in the LVH group than in the LVMI normal group (p < .05), both with no adjustment and after initial adjustment (including age and body mass index), as well as after full adjustment (including age, body mass index, interventricular septal thickness, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular posterior wall thickness, and history of hypertension). Additionally, curve fitting showed that the ECG RV5/V6 values increased with increasing LVMI in marathon runners, exhibiting a nearly linear positive correlation. In conclusions, the ECG RV5/V6 criteria were correlated with LVH in marathon runners.