ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2018
T-Wave Abnormality as Electrocardiographic Signature of Myocardial Edema in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms of Myocardial Edema Development in CVD Pathophysiology.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Temporal electrocardiographic changes in anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction versus the Takotsubo syndrome.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Article
- Twenty-four hour variability of inverted T-waves in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- ECG Abnormalities in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Bronchiectasis and Factors Associated with High Probability of Abnormality.Pulmonary medicine · 2021Observational
- Prognostic value of admission electrocardiographic findings in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundT-wave abnormalities are common during the acute phase of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, but mechanisms underlying their occurrence are unclear. We hypothesized that T-wave abnormalities in the presentation of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes correspond to the presence of myocardial edema. METHODS AND
resultsSecondary analysis of a previously enrolled prospective cohort of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes was conducted. Twelve-lead electrocardiography (ECG) and cardiac magnetic resonance with T2-weighted imaging were acquired before invasive coronary angiography. ECGs were classified dichotomously (ie, ischemic versus normal/nonischemic) and nominally according to patterns of presentation: no ST- or T-wave abnormalities, isolated T-wave abnormality, isolated ST depression, ST depression+T-wave abnormality. Myocardial edema was determined by expert review of T2-weighted images. Of 86 subjects (65% male, 59.4 years), 36 showed normal/nonischemic ECG, 25 isolated T-wave abnormalities, 11 isolated ST depression, and 14 ST depression+T-wave abnormality. Of 30 edema-negative subjects, 24 (80%) had normal/nonischemic ECGs. Isolated T-wave abnormality was significantly more prevalent in edema-positive versus edema-negative subjects (41.1% versus 6.7%,
conclusionsT-wave abnormalities in the setting of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes are related to the presence of myocardial edema. High specificity of this ECG alteration identifies a change in ischemic myocardium associated with worse outcomes that is potentially reversible.
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.