Electrocardiographic modifications induced by breast implants.
ECG modifications
breasts implants
Journal
Clinical cardiology
ISSN: 1932-8737
Titre abrégé: Clin Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7903272
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
28
01
2019
revised:
13
03
2019
accepted:
14
03
2019
pubmed:
16
3
2019
medline:
19
12
2019
entrez:
16
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Echocardiography realization can be challenging in the presence of breasts implants (BI). It is less known if electrocardiograms (ECG) may be modified in the presence of BI. ECG from women with BI (and without any known cardiac structural disease) were sent and analyzed by two experienced electrophysiologists (EP1 and EP2) who were blinded and completely unaware of the context of the patients (Group 1). ECG from a control matched-group of female women without BI (Group 2) were also blindly sent for analysis. ECG were collected from 28 women with BI (42 ± 8 years) without any acute medical condition. A proportion of 42% of the ECG were considered abnormal by EP1 and 46% by EP2. The abnormalities were for EP1: negative T waves (5), ST depression in inferolateral leads (2), absence of R wave progression from V1 to V4 (4), left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (1), long QT(1), early repolarization (1), short PR (1); For EP2: negative T waves (6), ST depression in inferolateral leads (2), absence of R wave progression from V1 to V4 (4), LV hypertrophy(3), long QT (1), early repolarization (1). ECG from group 2 were considered abnormal in only 1 patient (5%) for EP1, and normal in all for EP2 (P = 0.0002 between the groups). ECG from women with BI were considered abnormal in 42% to 46% of the cases by expert readers. ECG interpretation can thus be misleading in these women.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Echocardiography realization can be challenging in the presence of breasts implants (BI). It is less known if electrocardiograms (ECG) may be modified in the presence of BI.
METHODS
METHODS
ECG from women with BI (and without any known cardiac structural disease) were sent and analyzed by two experienced electrophysiologists (EP1 and EP2) who were blinded and completely unaware of the context of the patients (Group 1). ECG from a control matched-group of female women without BI (Group 2) were also blindly sent for analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ECG were collected from 28 women with BI (42 ± 8 years) without any acute medical condition. A proportion of 42% of the ECG were considered abnormal by EP1 and 46% by EP2. The abnormalities were for EP1: negative T waves (5), ST depression in inferolateral leads (2), absence of R wave progression from V1 to V4 (4), left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (1), long QT(1), early repolarization (1), short PR (1); For EP2: negative T waves (6), ST depression in inferolateral leads (2), absence of R wave progression from V1 to V4 (4), LV hypertrophy(3), long QT (1), early repolarization (1). ECG from group 2 were considered abnormal in only 1 patient (5%) for EP1, and normal in all for EP2 (P = 0.0002 between the groups).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
ECG from women with BI were considered abnormal in 42% to 46% of the cases by expert readers. ECG interpretation can thus be misleading in these women.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30873625
doi: 10.1002/clc.23174
pmc: PMC6522987
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
542-545Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Am J Med. 2010 Jan;123(1):34-6
pubmed: 20102989
Clin Cardiol. 2019 May;42(5):542-545
pubmed: 30873625
Maturitas. 2000 Jul 31;36(1):43-7
pubmed: 10989241
Images Paediatr Cardiol. 2015 Jul-Sep;17(3):1-2
pubmed: 26865849
South Med J. 1994 Oct;87(10):978-84
pubmed: 7939925
JAMA. 2007 Mar 7;297(9):978-85
pubmed: 17341712
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jul 28;66(4):470-7
pubmed: 26205599
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993 Mar;91(3):529-32
pubmed: 8438025
Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2007 Feb 23;5:9
pubmed: 17319960
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 May 20;63(19):2028-34
pubmed: 24583300
Circulation. 2012 May 29;125(21):2572-7
pubmed: 22576982