ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2023
The value of the 12-lead electrocardiogram in the prediction of sudden cardiac death.
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digitization and Linkage of PDF Formatted 12-Lead Electrocardiograms in Adult Congenital Heart Disease.CJC pediatric and congenital heart disease · 2025Article
- Multimodal AI to forecast arrhythmic death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- Fragmented QRS, Arrhythmic Causes, and Myocardial Fibrosis Burden by Autopsy Among Countywide Sudden Deaths.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value and clinical impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients after sudden cardiac arrest: a retrospective study.Open heart · 2025Article
- The pivotal role of ECG in cardiomyopathies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- QT Interval Dispersion 36 Years On: Why the Concept Failed and What Replaced It.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) can be caused by several clinical conditions, overt or misconceived, which recognize different pathophysiologies determining the development of fatal arrhythmic events. In the various forms of structural heart disease such as ischaemic heart disease, cardiomyopathies (e.g. hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy), channelopathies (e.g. long-QT syndrome, congenital short QT, Brugada syndrome, early repolarization (ER) syndrome, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation) but also in the apparently healthy subject, the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) has proved, over the years, to be a reliable and readily available method for stratifying the risk of adverse arrhythmic events and consequently SCD. Several electrocardiographic markers have been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes in different types of patients. Although with different sensitivity and specificity in each clinical condition, depolarization abnormalities, such as QRS fragmentation, Q waves, QRS duration, left posterior fascicular block, low QRS voltage, and left ventricular hypertrophy and similarly repolarization abnormalities as ER pattern, T wave alternans, QT interval, and QT dispersion, have shown significant efficacy in predicting SCD. Despite the advancement of techniques especially in the field of imaging, the correct interpretation of the 12-lead ECG remains, therefore, an effective tool for assessing the possible prognostic outcome in terms of arrhythmic risk and SCD in different types of patients.
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.