Comparison of the spatial QRS-T angle derived from digital ECGs recorded using conventional electrode placement with that derived from Mason-Likar electrode position

Background: The spatial QRS-T angle is ideally derived from orthogonal leads. We compared the spatial QRS-T angle derived from orthogonal leads reconstructed from digital 12-lead ECGs and from digital Holter ECGs recorded with the Mason-Likar (M-L) electrode positions. Methods and results: Orthogonal leads were constructed by the inverse Dower method and used to calculate spatial QRS-T angle by (1) a vector method and (2) a net amplitude method, in 100 volunteers. Spatial QRS-T angles from standard and M-L ECGs differed significantly (57° ± 18° vs 48° ± 20° respectively using net amplitude method and 53° ± 28° vs 48° ± 23° respectively by vector method; p < 0.001). Difference in amplitudes in leads V4–V6 was also observed between Holter and standard ECGs, probably due to a difference in electrical potential at the central terminal. Conclusion: Mean spatial QRS-T angles derived from standard and M-L lead systems differed by 5°–9°. Though statistically significant, these differences may not be clinically significant

Prophylactic potential of a Panchgavya formulation against certain pathogenic bacteria [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

A Panchgavya preparation was evaluated for its prophylactic efficacy against bacterial infection, employing the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans as a model host. Worms fed with the Panchgavya preparation prior to being challenged with pathogenic bacteria had a better survival rate against four out of five test bacterial pathogens, as compared to the control worms. Panchgavya feeding prior to bacterial challenge was found to be most effective against Staphylococcus aureus, resulting in 27% (p=0.0001) better worm survival. To the best of our awareness, this is the first report demonstrating in vivo prophylactic efficacy of Panchgavya mixture against pathogenic bacteria

Converting a conventional wired-halogen illuminated indirect ophthalmoscope to a wireless-light emitting diode illuminated indirect ophthalmoscope in less than 1000/- rupees

Aim: To report the "do it yourself" method of converting an existing wired-halogen indirect ophthalmoscope (IO) to a wireless-light emitting diode (LED) IO and report the preferences of the patients and the ophthalmologists. Subjects and Methods: In this prospective observational study, a conventional IO was converted to wireless-LED IO using easily available, affordable electrical components. Conventional and the converted IO were then used to perform photo-stress test and take the feedback of subjects and the ophthalmologists regarding its handling and illumination characteristics. Results: The cost of conversion to wireless-LED was 815/- rupees. Twenty-nine subjects, mean age 34.3 ΁ 10 years with normal eyes were recruited in the study. Between the two illumination systems, there was no statistical difference in the magnitude of the visual acuity loss and the time to recovery of acuity and the bleached vision on photo-stress test, although the visual recovery was clinically faster with LED illumination. The heat sensation was more with halogen illumination than the LED (P = 0.009). The ophthalmologists rated wireless-LED IO higher than wired-halogen IO on the handling, examination comfort, patient′s visual comfort and quality of the image. Twenty-two (81%) ophthalmologists wanted to change over to wireless-LED IO. Conclusions: Converting to wireless-LED IO is easy, cost-effective and preferred over a wired-halogen indirect ophthalmoscope

Choice of an alternative lead for QT interval measurement in serial ECGs when Lead II is not suitable for analysis

Introduction: Conventionally, QT interval is measured in lead II. There are no data to select an alternative lead for QT measurement when it cannot be measured in Lead II for any reason. Methods and results: We retrospectively analyzed ECGs from 1906 healthy volunteers from 41 phase I studies. QT interval was measured on the median beat in all 12 leads. The mean difference in QT interval between lead aVR and in Lead II was the least, followed by aVF, V5, V6 and V4; lead aVL had maximum difference. The T wave was flat (<0.1 mV) in Lead II in 6.9% of ECGs; it was also flat in 20% of these ECGs (1.4% of all ECGs) in Leads aVR, aVF and V5. Conclusions: When QT interval cannot be measured in Lead II, the best alternative leads are aVR, aVF, V5, V6 and V4 in that sequence. It differs maximally from that in Lead II in Lead aVL

Validation of electrocardiographic criteria for identifying left ventricular dysfunction in patients with previous myocardial infarction

Background Eleven criteria correlating electrocardiogram (ECG) findings with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have been previously published. These have not been compared head‐to‐head in a single study. We studied their value as a screening test to identify patients with reduced LVEF estimated by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Methods ECGs and CMR from 548 patients (age 61 + 11 years, 79% male) with previous myocardial infarction (MI), from the DETERMINE and PRE‐DETERMINE studies, were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each criterion for identifying patients with LVEF ≤ 30% and ≤ 40% were studied. A useful screening test should have high sensitivity and NPV. Results Mean LVEF was 40% (SD = 11%); 264 patients (48.2%) had LVEF ≤ 40%, and 96 patients (17.5%) had LVEF ≤ 30%. Six of 11 criteria were associated with a significant lower LVEF, but had poor sensitivity to identify LVEF ≤ 30% (range 2.1%–55.2%) or LVEF ≤ 40% (1.1%–51.1%); NPVs were good for LVEF ≤ 30% (range 82.8%–85.9%) but not for LVEF ≤ 40% (range 52.1%–60.6%). Goldberger's third criterion (RV4/SV4  124 ms + either Goldberger's third criterion or Goldberger's first criterion (SV1 or SV2 + RV5 or RV6 ≥ 3.5 mV) had high specificity (95.4%–100%) for LVEF ≤ 40%, although seen in only 48 (8.8%) patients; predictive values were similar on subgroup analysis. Conclusions None of the ECG criteria qualified as a good screening test. Three criteria had high specificity for LVEF ≤ 40%, although seen in < 9% of patients. Whether other ECG criteria can better identify LV dysfunction remains to be determined