Electrocardiographic QRS Axis Shift ,Rotation and COVİD-19

January 5, 2021 updated by: Şahbender Koç, Ankara Education and Research Hospital

Retrospective Evaluation of Electrocardiographic Findings of Right Ventricular Overload in Covid 19 Patients With Respiratory Distress

In patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), severe dyspnea is the most dramatic complication.Severe respiratory difficulties may include electrocardiographic frontal QRS axis rightward shift (Rws) and clockwise rotation (Cwr).

This study investigated the predictability of advanced lung tomography findings with QRS axis shift and rotation.

This was a retrospective analysis of 160 patients.The patients were divided into two groups: normal oxygen saturation(SpO2) (NS; n = 80) and low SpO2(LS;n = 80).They were then divided into NS Rws (n = 37), NS leftward shift (Lws; n = 43), LS Rws (n = 40), and LS Lws (n = 40) according to electrocardiographic follow-up findings. These groups were compared in terms of electrocardiographic rotation (Cwr, counterclockwise rotation, or normal transition), tomographic stage (CO-RADS5(advanced)/CO-RADS1-4), electrocardiographic intervals, and laboratory findings

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Detailed Description

The lung is the most seriously damaged organ in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In patients with advanced lung involvement, the alveoli are filled with fluid, white blood cells, mucus, and damaged lung cell debris [1].

The electrical position of the heart in the frontal plane is defined as normal, right, left, or northwest quadrant axis deviation, while its position in the horizontal plane is defined as clockwise rotation (Cwr), normal transition, or counterclockwise rotation (Ccwr)[2].

As respiratory disease progresses,rightward shift(Rws) of the frontal QRS axis can result from Cwr of the heart around its longitudinal axis as viewed from the apex, sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance causing right ventricle dilatation, or both [3].

Electrocardiographic changes should be monitored intermittently, as this disease progresses rapidly to near 50% mortality within 7-28 days [4].The aim of this study was to investigate whether easily detectable electrocardiographic axis and rotation changes could predict advanced lung involvement[4].

Methods Study design Records of 250 hospitalized patients with dyspnea and COVID-19 were analyzed retrospectively.Patients were excluded if they received positive pressurized oxygen therapy(n:25),underwent mechanical ventilation,(n:15)exhibited atrial fibrillation(n:10), conditions precluding the assessment of QRS transitional rotation ;complete bundle branch block(n:10), significant arrhythmias(n:5,complete atrioventricular block(n:2), polymorphic ventricular tachycardia(n:2), and ventricular fibrillation), Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome(n:1), supraventricular tachycardia(n:4), or had unclear QRS axis orientation(n:20). The remaining160 patients who had electronic medical records, nursing records,at least three electrocardiographic recordings taken a few days apart, and laboratory and tomographic findings were included in the study.Patients with normal oxygen saturation (SpO2; ≥ 90%) who did not receive oxygen therapy and patients with low SpO2(<90%) who received nasal oxygen therapy were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups: normal SpO2(NS,n = 80) and low SpO2(LS, n = 80).

Electrocardiographic measurements were performed as previously described.The Tpe (T peak to T end) interval was measured from precordial leads [5].The delta corrected QT interval(QTc) calculated as last electrocardiographic QTc minus first electrocardiographic QTc. Discrepancies between computerized electrocardiographic analysis and the mean of three computer-aided measurements(Adobe Photoshop program-300dpi resolution) by a researcher were resolved by consultation with a second researcher.

Using follow-up electrocardiography,according to the direction of QRS axis shift between the first and last electrocardiograms, both groups were divided into two main subgroups:patients with rightward shift (Rws) and patients with leftward shift(Lws) of the QRS axis.The patient numbers were as follows: NS Rws (n=37),NS Lws(n=43),LS Rws (n=40),andLS Lws (n=40). Based on electrocardiographic follow-up analyses,the two main groups were compared in terms of rotation condition (i.e., Cwr, normal transition, or CCwr), electrocardiographic intervals, and laboratory findings

Tomographic findings were evaluated in accordance with COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS)classification.CO-RADS scores are as follows: 1 (very low level of suspicion), 2 (low level of suspicion), 3 (equivocal), 4 (high level of suspicion),and 5 (very high level of suspicion)[6].

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

160

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Ankara, Turkey, 06530
        • Şahbender Koç

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • ADULT
  • OLDER_ADULT
  • CHILD

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Hospitalized patients with dyspnea and COVID-19

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Hospitalized patients with dyspnea and COVID-19

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients who received positive pressurized oxygen therapy Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation, Atrial fibrillation Complete bundle branch block Significant arrhythmias(complete atrioventricular block, polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation), Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, supraventricular tachycardia Unclear QRS axis orientation.

-

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Group1:normal SpO2(NS,n = 80) and low SpO2(LS, n = 80).
Patients with normal oxygen saturation (SpO2; ≥ 90%) who did not receive oxygen therapy and patients with low SpO2(<90%) who received nasal oxygen therapy were included in this study
Based on electrocardiographic follow-up analyses,the two main groups were compared in terms of rotation condition (i.e., Cwr, normal transition, or CCwr), electrocardiographic intervals, and laboratory findings In our study,CO-RADS5 was considered an advanced tomographic finding(e.g., multifocal ground glass opacities with consolidation, vascular thickening,crazy paving pattern,mixed pattern),while CO-RADS1,2,3, and 4 were considered non-advanced tomographic findings.
Group2:Rightward axis shift(Rws) and Leftward axis shift (Lws)
Both groups were divided into two main subgroups:patients with Rws and patients with leftward shift(Lws) of the QRS axis.The patient numbers were as follows: NS Rws (n=37),NS Lws(n=43),LS Rws (n=40),andLS Lws (n=40)
Based on electrocardiographic follow-up analyses,the two main groups were compared in terms of rotation condition (i.e., Cwr, normal transition, or CCwr), electrocardiographic intervals, and laboratory findings In our study,CO-RADS5 was considered an advanced tomographic finding(e.g., multifocal ground glass opacities with consolidation, vascular thickening,crazy paving pattern,mixed pattern),while CO-RADS1,2,3, and 4 were considered non-advanced tomographic findings.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Differences in the electrocardiographic QRS axis shift(°),
Time Frame: 10-15 days
Differences in the axis shift between the Rws and Lws groups in patients with NS /LS groups.
10-15 days
Differences in the electrocardiographic rotation
Time Frame: 10-15 days
Differences in clockwise,counterclockwise,normal transition between the groups.
10-15 days
Differences in the CO-RADS5/CO-RADS1-4 ratio
Time Frame: 10-15 days
Differences in the CO-RADS5/CO-RADS1-4 ratio between the groups.
10-15 days

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Şahbender Koç, University of Health Sciences Ankara Keçiören Education Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

July 22, 2020

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

October 15, 2020

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

November 5, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 4, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 5, 2021

First Posted (ACTUAL)

January 6, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

January 6, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 5, 2021

Last Verified

January 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Covid19

Clinical Trials on Electrocardiography ,Tomographic imaging

Subscribe