ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2019
Low lead one ratio predicts clinical outcomes in left bundle branch block.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive Hemodynamic Assessment by a Sensor Patch: The PATCHWRK (PortAble TeCHnology for Wireless caRdiomyopathy tracKing) Study.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Useful Electrocardiographic Signs to Support the Prediction of Favorable Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Lead one ratio: A new electrocardiogram marker for cardiac resynchronization therapy response.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2021Article
- Lead one ratio in left bundle branch block predicts poor cardiac resynchronization therapy response.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2020Article
- Electrocardiographic parameters associated with pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy.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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe evaluated the association between a novel electrocardiographic (ECG) marker of late, rightward electrocardiographic forces (termed the lead one ratio [LOR]), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial scar, and clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS AND
resultsLOR was calculated in patients with LBBB from a derivation cohort (n = 240) and receiver operator characteristic curves identified optimal threshold values for predicting myocardial scar and LVEF less than 35%. An independent validation cohort of patients with LBBB (n = 196) was used to test the association of LOR with the myocardial scar, LVEF, and the likelihood of death, heart transplant or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The optimal thresholds in the derivation cohort were LOR less than 13.7 for identification of scar (sensitivity 55%, specificity 80%), and LOR less than 12.1 for LVEF less than 35% (sensitivity 49%, specificity 80%). In the validation cohort, LOR less than 13.7 was not associated with scar size or presence (P > 0.05 for both). LOR less than 12.1 was associated with lower LVEF (30 [20-40] versus 40 [25-55]%; P = 0.002) and predicted LVEF less than 35% in univariable (odds ratio [OR], 2.2 [1.2-4.1]; P = 0.01) and multivariable analysis (OR, 2.2 [1.2-4.3]; P = 0.02). LOR less than 12.1 was associated with scar presence when patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy were excluded (OR = 7.2 [1.5-33.2]; P = 0.002). LOR less than 12.1 had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.53 ([1.05-2.21]; P = 0.03) for death, transplant or LVAD implantation.
conclusionsIn conclusion, ECG LOR less than 12.1 predicts reduced-LV systolic function and poorer prognosis in patients with LBBB.
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.