Ariyarajah Vignendra, Apiyasawat Sirin, Puri Puneet, Spodick David H
Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), Veterans' Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
J Electrocardiol. 2006 Oct;39(4):380-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2005.11.002. Epub 2006 Mar 9.
Interatrial block (IAB; P waves >/= 110 milliseconds), the conduction delay between the right (RA) and left atrium (LA), is depicted on the electrocardiogram (ECG) as prolonged, often bifid ("notched"), P waves with distinguishable RA and LA components. Although electrophysiologic (EP) studies give some insight on how RA and LA components are depicted on the surface ECG in normal conduction, few if at all any, have conclusively demonstrated this correlation with IAB. Using existing EP knowledge, we investigated if such P-wave markers on bedside ECGs exist in IAB and appraised their utility in IAB recognition.
We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to a general hospital from December 1, 2004, to December 15, 2004. Of those, 151 patients had been admitted for nonacute presentations and were screened with 12-lead ECGs. Thirty-eight ECGs were excluded for nonsinus and paced rhythms, severe motion artifact, errors in lead placement, absence of adequate patient identification, and duplicate patient admissions after discharge. The remaining 113 ECGs were then evaluated for IAB. Sixty-three patients who did not have IAB formed the control (group A), whereas of the remaining 50 patients with IAB, 24 who had past ECGs for comparison formed group B1 and 26 without past ECGs formed group B2. Groups were compared for common clinical comorbidities, whereas sensitivity and specificity were calculated for significant P-wave markers. P values were also calculated, with a value of <.05 considered significant.
Clinical characteristics of patients in all groups were statistically comparable. Overall, almost all P waves in patients with IAB (groups 1 and 2) appeared "notched" (94%, P < .0001; sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 94% for IAB recognition; positive predictive value, 94%). P-wave RA components were commonly depicted as "domes," whereas their LA counterparts formed "spikes" (48%, P < .0001; sensitivity 96%; specificity, 70% for IAB recognition). When groups B1 and B2 were compared with increased accuracy, more P waves in group B1 were noted to have notches and had easily discernible RA and LA components; often, the RA duration is longer than the LA duration. In addition, more "dome-and-spike" complexes could be determined when past ECGs were present for comparison. These markers could be found on any bedside ECG lead in IAB but were predominant on leads II and V3 to V6.
Specific noninvasive surface markers such as P-wave "dome-and-spike" complexes and "notches" in any lead (predominantly leads II and V3-V6) on the bedside ECG could alert clinicians to measure P waves and so identify IAB.
房间阻滞(IAB;P波≥110毫秒),即右心房(RA)和左心房(LA)之间的传导延迟,在心电图(ECG)上表现为P波延长,常呈双峰(“有切迹”),且RA和LA成分可区分。尽管电生理(EP)研究对正常传导时RA和LA成分在体表心电图上的表现有所了解,但几乎没有研究能确凿地证明其与IAB的这种相关性。利用现有的EP知识,我们研究了IAB患者床旁心电图上是否存在此类P波标志物,并评估了它们在识别IAB中的效用。
我们回顾了2004年12月1日至2004年12月15日入住综合医院患者的病历。其中,151例因非急性疾病入院,接受了12导联心电图检查。38份心电图因非窦性和起搏心律、严重运动伪迹、导联放置错误、患者身份识别不充分以及出院后重复入院而被排除。其余113份心电图随后进行IAB评估。63例无IAB的患者组成对照组(A组),而其余50例有IAB的患者中,24例有既往心电图可供比较的组成B1组,26例无既往心电图的组成B2组。比较各组常见的临床合并症,计算显著P波标志物的敏感性和特异性。还计算了P值,并将P值<0.05视为有统计学意义。
所有组患者的临床特征在统计学上具有可比性。总体而言,IAB患者(1组和2组)几乎所有的P波都呈“有切迹”(94%,P<0.0001;敏感性为75%;识别IAB的特异性为94%;阳性预测值为94%)。P波的RA成分通常表现为“圆顶”,而LA成分则形成“尖峰”(48%,P<0.0001;识别IAB的敏感性为96%;特异性为70%)。当B1组和B2组进行更精确的比较时,发现B1组更多的P波有切迹,且RA和LA成分易于辨别;通常,RA时限长于LA时限。此外,当有既往心电图可供比较时,可以确定更多的“圆顶-尖峰”复合波。这些标志物在IAB患者的任何床旁心电图导联上都可发现,但在II导联和V3至V6导联上更为突出。
床旁心电图上任何导联(主要是II导联和V3-V6导联)出现的特定非侵入性体表标志物,如P波“圆顶-尖峰”复合波和“切迹”,可提醒临床医生测量P波,从而识别IAB。