ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1365-6637
Current Organisation
Lund University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.JELECTROCARD.2018.09.009
Abstract: The relationship between left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV myocardial scar can identify potentially reversible causes of LV dysfunction. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) alters the electrical and mechanical activation of the LV. We hypothesized that the relationship between LVEF and scar extent is different in LBBB compared to controls. We compared the relationship between LVEF and scar burden between patients with LBBB and scar (n = 83), and patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and scar but no electrocardiographic conduction abnormality (controls, n = 90), who had undergone cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at one of three centers. LVEF (%) was measured in CMR cine images. Scar burden was quantified by CMR late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and expressed as % of LV mass (%LVM). Maximum possible LVEF (LVEFmax) was defined as the function describing the hypotenuse in the LVEF versus myocardial scar extent scatter plot. Dysfunction index was defined as LVEFmax derived from the control cohort minus the measured LVEF. Compared to controls with scar, LBBB with scar had a lower LVEF (median [interquartile range] 27 [19-38] vs 36 [25-50] %, p < 0.001), smaller scar (4 [1-9] vs 11 [6-20] %LVM, p < 0.001), and greater dysfunction index (39 [30-52] vs 21 [12-35] % points, p < 0.001). Among LBBB patients referred for CMR, LVEF is disproportionately reduced in relation to the amount of scar. Dyssynchrony in LBBB may thus impair compensation for loss of contractile myocardium.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.JELECTROCARD.2018.05.019
Abstract: We aimed to improve the electrocardiographic 2009 left bundle branch block (LBBB) Selvester QRS score (2009 LBSS) for scar assessment. We retrospectively identified 325 LBBB patients with available ECG and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with late gadolinium enhancement from four centers (142 [44%] with CMR scar). Forty-four semi-automatically measured ECG variables pre-selected based on the 2009 LBSS yielded one multivariable model for scar detection and another for scar quantification. The 2009 LBSS achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.66) for scar detection, and R The 2009 LBSS detects and quantifies myocardial scar with poor accuracy. Improved models with extensive comparison of ECG and CMR had modest performance, indicating limited room for improvement of the 2009 LBSS.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 02-12-2018
DOI: 10.1111/CPF.12555
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-2017
DOI: 10.1111/ANEC.12440
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2015
DOI: 10.1016/J.JELECTROCARD.2015.06.003
Abstract: Estimation of the infarct size from body-surface ECGs in post-myocardial infarction patients has become possible using the Selvester scoring method. Automation of this scoring has been proposed in order to speed-up the measurement of the score and improving the inter-observer variability in computing a score that requires strong expertise in electrocardiography. In this work, we evaluated the quality of the QuAReSS software for delivering correct Selvester scoring in a set of standard 12-lead ECGs. Standard 12-lead ECGs were recorded in 105 post-MI patients prescribed implantation of an implantable cardiodefibrillator (ICD). Amongst the 105 patients with standard clinical left bundle branch block (LBBB) patterns, 67 had a LBBB pattern meeting the strict criteria. The QuAReSS software was applied to these 67 tracings by two independent groups of cardiologists (from a clinical group and an ECG core laboratory) to measure the Selvester score semi-automatically. Using various level of agreement metrics, we compared the scores between groups and when automatically measured by the software. The average of the absolute difference in Selvester scores measured by the two independent groups was 1.4±1.5 score points, whereas the difference between automatic method and the two manual adjudications were 1.2±1.2 and 1.3±1.2 points. Eighty-two percent score agreement was observed between the two independent measurements when the difference of score was within two point ranges, while 90% and 84% score agreements were reached using the automatic method compared to the two manual adjudications. The study confirms that the QuAReSS software provides valid measurements of the Selvester score in patients with strict LBBB with minimal correction from cardiologists.
No related grants have been discovered for Rasmus Borgquist.