ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2016
Diagnosis of myocardial infarction and ischemia in the setting of bundle branch block and cardiac pacing.
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2016. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myocardial Infarction in a Patient With Left Bundle Branch Pacing.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of Occlusion Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block and Paced Rhythms.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Unmasking Of pathologic Q waves by left bundle branch pacing.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- Article
- [Cardiac memory following pacemaker implantation].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2019Article
- The role of baseline and post-procedural frontal plane QRS-T angles for cardiac risk assessment in patients with acute STEMI.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) in the presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) or during ventricular pacing (VP) is challenging because of inherent changes in the sequence of ventricular depolarization and repolarization associated with both conditions. Although LBBB and right ventricular (RV) pacing may both produce abnormalities in the ECG, it is often possible to diagnose an acute MI (AMI) or an old MI based on selected morphologic changes. Primary ST-segment changes scoring 3 points or greater according to the Sgarbossa criteria are highly predictive of an AMI in patients with LBBB or RV pacing. The modified Sgarbossa criteria are useful for the diagnosis of AMI in patients with LBBB; however, these criteria have not yet been studied in the setting of RV pacing. Although changes of the QRS complex are not particularly sensitive for the diagnosis of an old MI in the setting of LBBB or RV pacing, the qR complex and Cabrera sign are highly specific for the presence of an old infarct. Diagnosing AMI in the setting of biventricular (BiV) pacing is challenging. To date there is minimal evidence suggesting that the traditional electrocardiographic criteria for diagnosis of AMI in bundle branch block may be applicable to patients with BiV pacing and positive QRS complexes on their ECG in lead V1. This report is a careful review of the electrocardiographic criteria facilitating the diagnosis of acute and remote MI in patients with LBBB and/or VP.
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.