Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1977;56:391-394

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holt, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Kramer, J. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Holt, J. H., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Kramer, J. O., Jr

Circulation, Vol 56, 391-394, Copyright © 1977 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

A study of the human heart as a multiple dipole source. IV. Left ventricular hypertrophy in the presence of right bundle branch block

JH Holt Jr, AC Barnard and JO Kramer Jr

This report concerns the task of electrocardiographic (ECG) diagnosis and quantitation of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB). In 36 patients with RBBB the left ventricular mass (LVM) of each patient was independently known from quantitative biplane angiography. Two ECG techniques, standard 12-lead ECG and multiple dipole electrocardiography (MDECG), were evaluated. In diagnosing LVH, the best performance of the several standard ECG criteria was sensitivity = 29%, specificity = 100%, and that of the MDECG was sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 96%. In quantitating LVH, the standard ECG gave a correlation with LVM of r = 46% and a standard error of estimate of 98 g. The corresponding figures for the MDECG were r = 81% and the root mean square prediction error = 64 g. These results confirm other studies showing that the conventional ECG is of only marginal value in the task of diagnosing LVH in the presence of RBBB. In contrast, the MDECG performs well both in this task and that of quantitating LVH. The results provide further support of the accuracy of the model of the cardiac electrical generator and volume conductor used in the MDECG method.