1992European Heart JournalRequires access

Difficulties in the use of electrocardiographic criteria for the differential diagnosis of left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia in patients with a structurally normal heart

Michael Griffith, Mark de Belder, Nick Linker, David Ward, A. John Camm

Open publisher page 21 citations

Abstract

In patients with left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia, electrocardiographic criteria, based on leads V1, V2 and V6, have been shown to be effective for the diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia in patients with a previous myocardial infarct. To test these criteria on a wider population, we studied 53 consecutive patients with left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia. Seventeen patients had supraventricular tachycardia and 36 had ventricular tachycardia, 18 with a previous myocardial infarction, two with cardiomyopathy, and 16 with a normal heart. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia in patients with a previous myocardial infarct of the combined criteria was 100% but was only 50% for the other patients, which was not significantly different from the patients with supraventricular tachycardia (29%). Two other criteria, right axis shift in tachycardia and ventricular ectopics during sinus rhythm with the same morphology as the tachycardia, were only seen in patients with ventricular tachycardia, and combined with the other criteria allowed the correct identification of 35/36 patients with ventricular tachycardia. To conclude, the electrocardiographic criteria based on leads V1, V2 and V6 are not sensitive for the diagnosis of a ventricular origin of left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia in patients with a normal heart and additional criteria are required for the diagnosis in these patients.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In patients with left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia, electrocardiographic criteria, based on leads V1, V2 and V6, have been shown to be effective for the diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia in patients with a previous myocardial infarct. To test these criteria on a wider population, we studied 53 consecutive patients with left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia. Seventeen patients had supraventricular tachycardia and 36 had ventricular tachycardia, 18 with a previous myocardial infarction, two with cardiomyopathy, and 16 with a normal heart. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia in patients with a previous myocardial infarct of the combined criteria was 100% but was only 50% for the other patients, which was not significantly different from the patients with supraventricular tachycardia (29%). Two other criteria, right axis shift in tachycardia and ventricular ectopics during sinus rhythm with the same morphology as the tachycardia, were only seen in patients with ventricular tachycardia, and combined with the other criteria allowed the correct identification of 35/36 patients with ventricular tachycardia. To conclude, the electrocardiographic criteria based on leads V1, V2 and V6 are not sensitive for the diagnosis of a ventricular origin of left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia in patients with a normal heart and additional criteria are required for the diagnosis in these patients.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 21 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In patients with left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia, electrocardiographic criteria, based on leads V1, V2 and V6, have been shown to be effective for the diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia in patients with a previous myocardial infarct. To test these criteria on a wider population, we studied 53 consecutive patients with left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia. Seventeen patients had supraventricular tachycardia and 36 had ventricular tachycardia, 18 with a previous myocardial infarction, two with cardiomyopathy, and 16 with a normal heart. The sensitivity for the diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia in patients with a previous myocardial infarct of the combined criteria was 100% but was only 50% for the other patients, which was not significantly different from the patients with supraventricular tachycardia (29%). Two other criteria, right axis shift in tachycardia and ventricular ectopics during sinus rhythm with the same morphology as the tachycardia, were only seen in patients with ventricular tachycardia, and combined with the other criteria allowed the correct identification of 35/36 patients with ventricular tachycardia. To conclude, the electrocardiographic criteria based on leads V1, V2 and V6 are not sensitive for the diagnosis of a ventricular origin of left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia in patients with a normal heart and additional criteria are required for the diagnosis in these patients.

Key concepts: Medicine, Cardiology, Internal medicine, Ventricular tachycardia, Left bundle branch block, Tachycardia, Supraventricular tachycardia, Myocardial infarction

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Difficulties in the use of electrocardiographic criteria for the differential diagnosis of left bundle branch block pattern tachycardia in patients with a structurally normal heart — Research Paper | ScholarLens