Back

Diagnostic performance of the fragmented QRS complex on electrocardiogram for detecting myocardial scars assessed by 3.0 Tesla cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Viriyanukulvong, K.; Theerasuwipakorn, N.; Wongcharoen, W.; Kosum, P.; Chokesuwattanaskul, R.

2024-03-26 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2024.03.23.24304647 medRxiv
Show abstract

ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSFragmented QRS complex (f-QRS) on a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG) with a 0.15-100 or 150 Hz low-pass filter is known to be related to ischemic myocardial scars. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging enhances tissue characterization capability resulting in a better myocardial scar assessment over other noninvasive imaging modalities. However, the diagnostic values of f-QRS on non-ischemic scars and f-QRS from EKG with a 015-40 Hz low-pass filter (routine filter in clinical practice) are unknown. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of f-QRS (from EKG with 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters) for detecting any myocardial scars (both ischemic and non- ischemic) assessed by 3.0 Tesla CMR. MethodsThis cross-sectional study included patients who underwent a 3.0 Tesla CMR scan from May 2020 to May 2023. A 12-lead EKG with 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters, performed on the same day of the CMR scan, was assessed for the presence of f-QRS. The ECG leads were divided into 3 categories (e.g., anterior leads V1-V4; lateral leads I, aVL, V5-V6; and inferior leads II, III, aVF). The f-QRS was defined as the presence of R wave or notching in the nadir of the S wave in 2 contiguous leads. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of f-QRS from EKG in myocardial scar detection in the corresponding left ventricle (LV) segments. The secondary outcomes were to compare the diagnostic performance of f-QRS in detecting ischemic scars and non-ischemic scars, the diagnostic performance between f-QRS diagnosed from 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters, and the diagnostic performance of f-QRS presented in 2 consecutive leads and f-QRS presented in solitary lead. ResultsThe study involved 1,692 participants with a median age of 67 (IQR: 59-85) years old and 52.5% males. Myocardial scars were found in 826 (49%) participants. Male, history of CAD, and myocardial scars were significantly more frequent in the participants with f- QRS (59.4% vs 46.0%, 26.4% vs 20.6%, and 48.9% vs 37.3%, respectively), while median LVEF was lower (61%, IQR 47, 66 vs 62%, IQR 55, 68; p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC of f-QRS from EKG with 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filter for detecting myocardial scars were 25.6%, 88.7%, 45.1%, 76.8%, and 0.57 for anterior segments; 22.1%, 91.5%, 36.8%, 84.1%, and 0.57 for lateral segments; and 42.9%, 63.4%, 36.9, 68.9%, and 0.53 for inferior segments. The sensitivity, PPV, and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of f-QRS were higher for detecting non- ischemic scars while specificity, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and AUC were not significantly different. The f-QRS from 0.15-100 Hz showed a higher sensitivity but lower specificity, PPV, and LR+ for all LV segments. The f-QRS presented in the solitary lead showed a higher sensitivity with a lower specificity, PPV, and LR+. ConclusionThis study demonstrates a high specificity and negative predictive value of f- QRS from a 12-lead EKG with 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters in diagnosing myocardial scars when correlated to the corresponding LV segments. Graphical Abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=148 SRC="FIGDIR/small/24304647v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (64K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@146b774org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1b639f2org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@964c0eorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@15b3090_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.