We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Development and validation of diagnostic criteria for atrial flutter on the surface electrocardiogram.
Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology 2008 April
BACKGROUND: There are no universally accepted ECG diagnostic criteria for atrial flutter (AFL), making its differentiation from "coarse" atrial fibrillation (AF) difficult.
METHODS: To develop diagnostic criteria for AFL, we examined two sets of ECGs. Set 1 consisted of 100 ECGs (50 AF, AFL) with diagnoses confirmed by intracardiac recordings. Criteria evaluated were presence of F waves in the frontal plane leads, F waves in V(1), sawtooth F waves, rate, and regularity of ventricular response. Set 2 included 200 ECGs taken from the hospital database each of which had already been interpreted by a cardiologist as either AF (n = 100) or AFL (n = 100). Set 2 was blindly read by electrophysiologists whose consensus-diagnoses were compared to the diagnoses made by using the best criteria identified from the Set 1 data.
RESULTS: The criteria of frontal plane F waves, regular or partially regular ventricular response, and their combination had sensitivities of 92%, 98%, and 90% and specificities of 100%, 78%, and 100% in Set 1 for the diagnosis of AFL. In Set 2, concordance of electrophysiologist and cardiologist diagnoses was only 84%. The criteria of frontal plane Fwaves, regular or partially regular ventricular response, and their combination resulted in concordances with the cardiologist diagnoses of 85%, 85%, and 82% and with the electrophysiologist-consensus diagnoses of 90%, 89%, and 94% (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The criteria of frontal plane F waves and regular or partially regular ventricular response aid in the proper diagnosis of AFL. Because management strategies may differ for AF and AFL, it is important to adopt a more rigorous diagnostic approach.
METHODS: To develop diagnostic criteria for AFL, we examined two sets of ECGs. Set 1 consisted of 100 ECGs (50 AF, AFL) with diagnoses confirmed by intracardiac recordings. Criteria evaluated were presence of F waves in the frontal plane leads, F waves in V(1), sawtooth F waves, rate, and regularity of ventricular response. Set 2 included 200 ECGs taken from the hospital database each of which had already been interpreted by a cardiologist as either AF (n = 100) or AFL (n = 100). Set 2 was blindly read by electrophysiologists whose consensus-diagnoses were compared to the diagnoses made by using the best criteria identified from the Set 1 data.
RESULTS: The criteria of frontal plane F waves, regular or partially regular ventricular response, and their combination had sensitivities of 92%, 98%, and 90% and specificities of 100%, 78%, and 100% in Set 1 for the diagnosis of AFL. In Set 2, concordance of electrophysiologist and cardiologist diagnoses was only 84%. The criteria of frontal plane Fwaves, regular or partially regular ventricular response, and their combination resulted in concordances with the cardiologist diagnoses of 85%, 85%, and 82% and with the electrophysiologist-consensus diagnoses of 90%, 89%, and 94% (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The criteria of frontal plane F waves and regular or partially regular ventricular response aid in the proper diagnosis of AFL. Because management strategies may differ for AF and AFL, it is important to adopt a more rigorous diagnostic approach.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app