ABSTRACT
Background Fragmented QRS complex (f-QRS) on a 12-lead electrocardiogram (EKG) with a 0.15-100 or 150 Hz low-pass filter is known to be related to ischemic myocardial scars. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging enhances tissue characterization capability resulting in a better myocardial scar assessment over other noninvasive imaging modalities. However, the diagnostic values of f-QRS on non-ischemic scars and f-QRS from EKG with a 015-40 Hz low-pass filter (routine filter in clinical practice) are unknown. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of f-QRS (from EKG with 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters) for detecting any myocardial scars (both ischemic and non- ischemic) assessed by 3.0 Tesla CMR.
Methods This cross-sectional study included patients who underwent a 3.0 Tesla CMR scan from May 2020 to May 2023. A 12-lead EKG with 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters, performed on the same day of the CMR scan, was assessed for the presence of f-QRS. The ECG leads were divided into 3 categories (e.g., anterior leads V1-V4; lateral leads I, aVL, V5-V6; and inferior leads II, III, aVF). The f-QRS was defined as the presence of R’ wave or notching in the nadir of the S wave in 2 contiguous leads. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of f-QRS from EKG in myocardial scar detection in the corresponding left ventricle (LV) segments. The secondary outcomes were to compare the diagnostic performance of f-QRS in detecting ischemic scars and non-ischemic scars, the diagnostic performance between f-QRS diagnosed from 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters, and the diagnostic performance of f-QRS presented in 2 consecutive leads and f-QRS presented in solitary lead.
Results The study involved 1,692 participants with a median age of 67 (IQR: 59-85) years old and 52.5% males. Myocardial scars were found in 826 (49%) participants. Male, history of CAD, and myocardial scars were significantly more frequent in the participants with f- QRS (59.4% vs 46.0%, 26.4% vs 20.6%, and 48.9% vs 37.3%, respectively), while median LVEF was lower (61%, IQR 47, 66 vs 62%, IQR 55, 68; p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC of f-QRS from EKG with 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filter for detecting myocardial scars were 25.6%, 88.7%, 45.1%, 76.8%, and 0.57 for anterior segments; 22.1%, 91.5%, 36.8%, 84.1%, and 0.57 for lateral segments; and 42.9%, 63.4%, 36.9, 68.9%, and 0.53 for inferior segments. The sensitivity, PPV, and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of f-QRS were higher for detecting non- ischemic scars while specificity, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and AUC were not significantly different. The f-QRS from 0.15-100 Hz showed a higher sensitivity but lower specificity, PPV, and LR+ for all LV segments. The f-QRS presented in the solitary lead showed a higher sensitivity with a lower specificity, PPV, and LR+.
Conclusion This study demonstrates a high specificity and negative predictive value of f- QRS from a 12-lead EKG with 0.15-40 and 0.15-100 Hz low-pass filters in diagnosing myocardial scars when correlated to the corresponding LV segments.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
none
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (IRB No. 0660/66).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data supporting this study are included within the article and its supplementary materials.
