↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Application of the QRS-T Angle for the Prediction of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with the Fontan Palliation

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Cardiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Application of the QRS-T Angle for the Prediction of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with the Fontan Palliation
Published in
Pediatric Cardiology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00246-017-1618-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuong-Vi Tran, Daniel Cortez

Abstract

Fontan palliation patients are at risk for ventricular arrhythmias post-operatively. This study aimed to evaluate whether differences in the spatial QRS-T angle can reliably predict ventricular arrhythmias in patients who had undergone Fontan palliation. A total of 117 patients who had the Fontan palliation and post-Fontan catheterization were included. Ventricular arrhythmias were identified in nine patients. Measurements of ECG parameters including QRS vector magnitude, QRS duration, corrected QT interval, and spatial peaks QRS-T angles were performed, and compared between those with and without ventricular arrhythmias. The only ECG parameter to distinguish those with versus those without VA was the SPQRS-T angle (p < 0.001), which at a cut-off value of 102.9° gave sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 100.0, 57.0, 17.6 and 100.0%, respectively. Only the spatial peaks QRS-T angle differentiated those with and without ventricular arrhythmia development with a univariate HR 1.237 (95% CI 1.021-1.500) and a multivariate HR of 1.032 (1.009-1.056) when catheter measured parameters were taken into account. In Fontan patients, the spatial peaks QRS-T angle is a significant independent predictor of ventricular arrhythmias. Clinical usefulness of this parameter remains to be seen and should be tested prospectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Engineering 2 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Cardiology
#862
of 1,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,534
of 310,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Cardiology
#11
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,412 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.