3.8 Article

Comparison of exercise QRS amplitude changes in patients with slow coronary flow versus significant coronary stenosis

Journal

JAPANESE HEART JOURNAL
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 419-428

Publisher

INT HEART JOURNAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1536/jhj.45.419

Keywords

slow coronary flow; Athens QRS score; ischemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exercise Q, R, and S wave amplitude changes, called the QRS score, have been reported to be a marker of exercise-induced myocardial ischemia. Therefore, in this study, using the exercise QRS score, we sought to determine if slow coronary flow (SCF) phenomenon is associated with the exercise-induced myocardial ischemia. This retrospective study included 23 patients evaluated for suspected coronary artery disease and found to have SCF (group I) and 19 Subjects with angiographically-defined significant coronary artery stenosis (group II). All study subjects underwent treadmill exercise testing using the modified Bruce protocol. For each subject the amplitude of the Q, R, and S waves in leads aVF and V-5 was measured manually using calipers before and immediately after exercise. The QRS score was calculated by subtracting the Q, R, and S wave differences in leads aVF and V-5. There was no difference between the two groups with respect to demographic properties. The peak heart rate achieved, baseline and peak systolic-diastolic blood pressure, exercise duration, and the metabolic equivalent values were similar in both groups. The maximum ST-seginent depression ratio was significantly lower in patients with SCF than those of significant coronary stenosis (0.8 +/- 0.4 vs 1.3 +/- 0.5 P = 0.001, respectively). However, the exercise QRS score was found to be similar in both groups (3.3 +/- 2.3 vs 2.1 +/- 3.0 P = 0.2, respectively). The data suggest that SCF phenornenon may alone lead to myocardial ischemia even in the absence of obstructed major epicardial coronary arteries as detected by similar exercise QRS scores to those of significant coronary artery stenosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available