ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2014
Usefulness of electrocardiographic QRS/T angles with versus without bundle branch blocks to predict heart failure (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study).
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- ECG-AI: electrocardiographic artificial intelligence model for prediction of heart failure.European heart journal. Digital health · 2021Article
- Effects of Newly Developed Right Versus Left Bundle Branch Block on the QRS Axis, T-wave Axis and Frontal QRS-T Angle in Patients with a Narrow QRS.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- Population-based values and abnormalities of the electrocardiogram in the general Dutch population: The LifeLines Cohort Study.Clinical cardiology · 2017Observational
- A wide QRS/T angle in bundle branch blocks is associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.Journal of electrocardiologyArticle
- Electrocardiographic QRS-T angle and the risk of incident silent myocardial infarction in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.Journal of electrocardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Repolarization abnormalities in the setting of bundle branch blocks (BBB) are generally ignored. We used Cox regression models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident heart failure (HF) associated with wide spatial and frontal QRS/T angle (upper twenty-fifth percentile of each) in men and women with and without BBB. This analysis included 14,478 participants (54.6% women, 26.4% blacks, 377 [2.6%] with BBB) from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study who were free of HF at baseline. Using No-BBB with normal spatial QRS/T angle as the reference group, the risk for HF in multivariable adjusted models was increased 51% for No-BBB with wide spatial QRS/T angle (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.66), 48% for BBB with normal spatial QRS/T angle (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.88), and the risk for incident HF was increased more than threefold for BBB with wide spatial QRS/T angle (HR 3.37, 95% CI 2.47 to 4.60). The results were consistent across subgroups by gender. Similar results were observed for the frontal plane QRS/T angle. In the pooled BBB group excluding right BBB, a positive T wave in lead aVR and heart rate 70 bpm and higher were also potent predictors of incident HF similar to the QRS/T angles. In conclusion, both BBB and wide QRS/T angles are predictive of HF, and concomitant presence of both carries a much higher risk than for either predictor alone. These findings suggest that repolarization abnormalities in the setting of BBB should not be considered benign or an expected consequence of BBB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.