Scroll down to 22.09
Marfan syndrome
Most recent questions: (Please click on a question for the answer)
What is the relavance of poor R-wave progression with an otherwise normal ecg.
The following question is over two years old. We do not routinely update our answers. Therefore, significant new research may now be available. 07/Nov/05
Answer:
We carried out a search of the TRIP Database, Cochrane Library and Medline and found a great deal of uncertainty. Below is not an exhaustive list of references found, more a selection highlighting the debate. If more information is required, let us know.
Poor R-wave progression as a definition and as a clinically relevant tool appears to be highly debated amongst electro cardiographers. Since the 1960’s several papers have referred to the inconsistency and debate among those interpreting ECG’s, not only as regards the precise definition, but also as to what poor R-wave progression means.
Although we were unable to find a national guideline referencing R-wave progression, multiple papers between the 1960’s until 2004 discussed the broad spectrum of events that could account for poor (or reverse) R-wave progression. MacKenzie, earlier this year (2005) describes some of the many conditions that may account for a poor R-wave progression reading [1]:
“Poor R-wave progression is a common ECG pattern, which is often inconclusively interpreted by medical directors. Although this ECG pattern is commonly attributed to anterior myocardial infarction, it may also be caused by left bundle branch block, Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, right and left ventricular hypertrophy as well as by faulty ECG recording technique.”
This sentiment is echoed in many papers and in personal comments. For instance, a 2004 review paper by Gami, Rosenthal, and Holly, looked specifically at the tendency to associated poor R-wave progression with MI. Their conclusion was [2]:
“In our study of patients undergoing cardiac stress tests, only a small percentage of patients who met various criteria for PRWP (a proportion no different
Scroll down to 22.09
Aortic Size Assessment by Noncontrast Cardiac Computed Tomography: Normal Limits by Age, Gender, and Body Surface Area