Skip to main content
Download PDF

The prognostic effect of ST-elevation in lead aVR on coronary artery disease, and outcome in acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

European Journal of Medical Research volume 27, Article number: 302 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Rapid diagnosis of coronary artery disease has an important role in saving patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate if aVR lead ST-elevation (STE) can predict LM/3VD, left main (LM) disease, and three-vessel disease (3VD), outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 45 qualified studies were entered. Scopus, Pub med, Google scholar, Web of science, Cochrane library were searched on 12 November 2021.

Results

This systematic review includes 52,175 participants. In patients with STE, the total odds ratios for LM, 3VD, and LM/3VD were 5.48 (95% CI 3.88, 7.76), 2.21 (95% CI 1.78, 3.27), and 6.21 (95% CI 3.49, 11,6), respectively. STE in lead aVR was linked with in-hospital death (OR = 2.99, CI 1.90, 4.72) and 90-day mortality (OR = 3.09, CI 2.17, 4.39), despite the fact that it could not predict 30-day mortality (OR = 1.11, CI 0.95, 1.31). The STE > 1 mm subgroup had the highest sensitivity for LM (0.9, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98), whereas the STE > 0.5 mm (0.76, 95% CI 0.61, 0.90) subgroup had the highest sensitivity for LM/3VD. The appropriate cut-off point with highest specificity for LM/3VD and LM was STE > 1.5 mm (0.80, 95% CI 0.75, 0.85) and STE > 0.5 mm, respectively (0.75, 95% CI 0.67, 0.84, I2 = 97%).

Conclusion

The odds of LM and LM/3VD were higher than 3VD in ACS patients with STE in lead aVR. Also, STE > 0.5 mm was the best cut-off point to screen LM/3VD, whereas for LM diagnosis, STE > 1 mm had the highest sensitivity. Furthermore, LM/3VD had a higher overall specificity than LM.

Introduction

One of the main reasons of death in the worldwide adult population is ischemic heart disease (IHD) that imposes a significant financial burden on the health care system [1, 2]. Almost, 40% of patients with IHD present with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), which includes acute non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), unstable angina, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). ACS will rise exponentially in the coming years as result of the rising prevalence of some risk factors such as diabetes, obesity as well as increasing the life expectancy of the worldwide population [3]. A significant proportion of ACS patients have left anterior coronary artery (LAD), left main coronary artery stenosis (LMCA), or both of them [4]. Obstruction in these arteries critically decrease coronary flow, which impair left ventricular function, leading to adverse outcomes and intraoperative complications, so early detection of these lesions is critical. Patients with ACS (LM/3VD) are at high risk for short-term and long-term cardiovascular side effects [5]. Despite remarkable progress in medical diagnosis, the electrocardiogram (ECG) is still the primary diagnostic tool in ACS patients. Valuable information is accrued of ECG in order to early detection of damaged coronary artery area, myocardial ischemia, lesion identification, and extent of infarction. Additionally, ECG can help predict possible complications [6].

Lead aVR has been long forgotten until recent years unlike the other 11 leads. Although recent examinations have stated that ST-segment change analysis in lead aVR provides helpful data on the coronary angiographic anatomy and risk classification in ACS [7]. Previous studies have shown that an increase in the ST-segment in the aVR lead (STE-aVR) might be helpful in order to diagnose left main disease or three-vessel disease (3VD) [4, 5, 8], despite some limitations including the selection bias, the retrospective nature of the studies, and the small sample size. Therefore, the aVR lead changes are not included in the American Heart Association's latest scientific statement on ECG interpretation [10]. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the diagnostic role of STE-aVR in ACS patients and its association with LM disease and 3VD.

Methods

Search strategy

Scopus, Cochrane library, Pub Med, Google scholar, Web of science, were searched on 12 November 2021 with following strategy: St-elevation[Title/Abstract] AND (Angiography[Title/Abstract] OR “Angiography result”[Title/Abstract] OR “Left main disease” OR “3VD” OR “3 vessel disease” OR “Myocardial infarction” OR “Left main”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“aVR lead”[Title/Abstract] OR aVR[Title/Abstract]).

Selection process and eligibility criteria

All articles were divided into three groups. Then, three authors (by E.K, A.M, and M.B) screened the article base on title, abstract, and keywords independently. Studies fulfilling the entire inclusion criteria entered in the study. Besides, there was no limitation in terms of language of article. Eligible criteria: (1) cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies were enrolled; (2) the enrolled studies were adopted from articles with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) study population; (3) studies reported odds ratio (OR) or sensitivity /specificity to predict LM or 3VD or LM/3VD or death base on the size of aVR ST-elevation. Some studies did not report any OR, although they had essential data for calculation of OR. Consequently, they were included in the study.

Extraction process and quality assessment

E.K, A.M, and M.B. did extraction process and quality assessment of article independently. Checklist used to assess the quality of studies was Appendix 2: MINORS Criteria. Non-comparative studies and comparative studies have 8 and 12 criteria, respectively. The items were scored in this way: (1) not reported = 0, (2) report but inadequate = 1, (3) completely reported = 2. The total ideal score was 16 for non-comparative studies and 24 for comparative studies [10].

Analysis

OR was used as a common correlation index to assess the strength of the relationship. Forest plots were drawn to examine the modified ORs along with their confidence intervals. The meta-analyses were performed using the fixed-effects or random-effects method to estimate the summary OR and 95% of CI using the inverse-variance weights and the DerSimonian–Laird estimator, respectively. The heterogeneity was evaluated by Q-Cochran test at the significance level of 0.05 and index I2 among studies. For I2 ≥ 50% and P ≤ 0.05, heterogeneity was considered statistically significant. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was done based on different sizes of STE in lead aVR and time of death. Publication bias was assessed the publication bias. In the funnel plot, ORs were plotted against the inverse of the square of the standard error. All analyses were done using STATA 14.0 software. All P values were two-tailed. Also, the significant level of p value was less than 0.05.

Result

Study selection and characteristics

Six-hundred fourteen related studies were extracted initially. Duplicate articles (n = 318) and studies that could not fulfill the study inclusion criteria (n = 264) were excluded after title, abstract and full-text screening (Fig. 1). Finally, 45 qualified articles were entered in this study [5, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. The total participants of the included studies were 52,175. All of the eligible studies were performed on both men and women. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and scores of eligible researches.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The diagram shows research process

Full size image
Table 1 The descriptive data of eligible studies. The unit of ST-elevation size is millimeter
Full size table

Main analysis

Subgroup analysis was performed for LM, 3VD and LM/3VD based on the size of STE in lead aVR (Figs. 2, 3 and 4). For LM, the overall OR was 5.48 (95% CI 3.88, 7.76). STE > 0.5 mm groups had higher OR compared with STE > 1 mm and 0.5 < STE < 1 mm (Fig. 2) and the heterogenicity between the studies was significant (I2 = 63.8%, p = 0.000). For 3VD, the overall OR was 2.41 (95% CI 1.78, 3.27) (Fig. 3) and the overall heterogenicity was significant between the studies (I2 = 81.4%, p = 0.0000). Also, STE > 0.5 mm had higher OR than STE > 1 mm. And finally for LM/3VD, with a significant heterogenicity (I2 = 86.3%, p = 0.0000), the overall OR was 6.21 (95% CI 3.49, 11,6). Similar to LM and 3VD, STE > 0.5 mm had higher OR compared with the other subgroup (Fig. 4). From the all 45 studies, 15 studies (with 30,521 participants) reported death. Despite STE in lead aVR could not predict 30-day mortality (OR = 1.11, CI 0.95, 1.31, I2 = 24.7%), STE in lead aVR was meaningfully associated with in-hospital death (OR = 2.99, CI 1.90, 4.72, I2 = 64.7%) and 90-day mortality (OR = 3.09, CI 2.17, 4.39, I2 = 0.0%) (Figs. 5, 6 and 7).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The forest plot represents the odds of left main disease in different size of STE in lead aVR

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The forest plot reports the odds of three-vessel disease in variant subgroups of ST-elevation in lead aVR

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

The forest plot of the association between LM/3VD and ST-elevation in lead aVR

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

The forest plot of the association between in-hospital mortality and subgroups of ST-elevation in lead aVR

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

The forest plot represents the odds of 30-day mortality in different subgroups of ST-elevation in lead aVR

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

The forest plot reports the odds of 90-day mortality in different size of ST-elevation in lead aVR

Full size image

Sensitivity and specificity

The overall sensitivity of STE for LM was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65, 0.89, I2 = 63.8%). The cut-off points of 1 mm had the highest sensitivity (0.9, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98) and negative predictive value (NPV) (0.94, CI 0.89, 0.99) (Additional file 1: Figures S5, S8). Pooled specificity for LM was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61, 0.81, I2 ÷ = 97%) with the highest specificity for 0.5 mm cut-off points (0.75, 95% CI 0.67, 0.84, I2 = 97%) (Additional file 1: Figure S6). The positive predictive value (PPV) of STE in lead aVR for LM was 0.5 (95% CI 0.36, 0.63, I2 = 97.4%) (Additional file 1: Figure S7). Pooled sensitivity for LM/3VD was 0.52 (95% CI 0.35, 0.68, I2 = 99.5%) and the cut-off points of 0.5 mm had the highest sensitivity (0.76, 95% CI 0.61, 0.90) and NPV (0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.94) (Additional file 1: Figures S1, S4). The NPV of STE in lead aVR for LM/3VD was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82, 0.90, I2 = 97%). Also, the cut-off points of 1.5 mm had the highest specificity (0.80, 95% CI 0.75, 0.85) and PPV (0.57, 95% CI 0.42, 0.71) (Additional file 1: Figures S2, S3).

To investigate the possible causes of heterogeneity, meta-regression analysis was performed based on sex, country, total sample size, mean age and publish year. There was not any significant source of heterogenicity except for total sample size in LM odds ratio (p = 0.011), LM/3VD odds ratio (p = 0.002) and LM npv (p = 0.045). Additionally, publish year was also meaningful for LM/3VD odds ratio (p = 0.007).

Publication bias

Publication bias was evaluated by the Begg's test and funnel‐plot interpretation. No significant bias was found among those articles with LM (p = 0.31), 3VD (p = 0.29) and LM/3VD (p = 0.26) in Begg’s test. Furthermore, there was no meaningful bias with regard to in-hospital mortality (p = 0.13), 30-day mortality (p = 0.18), and 90-day mortality (p = 0.94).

Discussion

Fast diagnosis of cardiovascular disease plays a critical role in rescuing of patients, especially patients with coronary artery disease [28]. aVR lead that is often ignored in clinic, pose some key date [55].

Our finding demonstrated STE in lead aVR can predict LM and LM/3VD with higher odds ratio than 3VD (ORLM: 5.48, CI [3.88, 7.76], ORLM/EVD = 6.21, CI [3.49, 11.06], OR3VD = 2.41, CI [1.78, 3.27]). Also, Misumida N et al. declared STE in lead aVR as an independent diagnosis factor of LM/3VD in non-STEMI (OR = 2.99, CI [1.79, 4.98]). In addition, Rathi N et al. from Pakistan represented that the number of LM/3VD patients in STE-aVR group was significantly higher than non-STE aVR group (51 (62.96%) vs 9 (29.03%), p < 0.0001) [41]. In a single cohort study from Mazandaran province, there was not any meaningful difference in both groups (STE-aVR vs non-STE aVR) in terms of LM/3VD. By the way, they pointed that STE in lead aVR related to severity of atherosclerosis, however their sample size was small [38]. Besides, another study with larger sample size (n = 472) could not found significant relationship between angiography result and STE in lead aVR [28]. Moreover, a systematic review and meta-analysis recently demonstrated that not only STE in AVR is related to LM but also the degree of elevation is effective, which is consistent with our results (OR STE> 1 mm = 4.17, CI [3.04, 5.70], OR 0.5 mm<STE<1 mm = 2.57, CI [1.97, 3.36] [56].

Misumida N et al. showed that STE in lead aVR could not make any meaningful change in the number of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.16) [5]. Moreover, another study with a large sample size (n = 15,315) reported that there was not any significant relationship between STE in lead aVR and 30-day mortality in adjusted model [49]. By contrast, a Spanish study pointed increase in the number of death related to STE in lead aVR significantly (p = 0.04). Also, another retrospective cross-sectional study represented that the chance of mortality in patients with STE upper than 1 mm was 7. 72 (CI [ 3.07, 19.42, P < 001) [18]. Besides, one study from New Zealand declared that mortality rate in inferior myocardial infarction was along with STE in lead aVR in adjusted model (hazard ratio = 5.87, CI [2.09–16.5]) [12]. In our study, the chance of in-hospital and 90-day mortality increased unlike 30-day mortality (ORin-hospital = 2.99, CI [1.90, 4.72], OR90-day = 3.09, CI [2.17, 4.39]).

Katırcıbaşı T. M et al. represented sensitivity and for diagnosis of LM disease in patients with 0.5 mm STE in lead aVR were 92.9% and 48.6%, respectively [30]. One study from Iran had similar results for detection of LM (sensitivity = 100, specificity = 33.5%) [24]. However, their cut-off point was 1 mm in order to consider STE in lead aVR, that was upper than prior study (cut-off = 0.5 mm). Besides, another study considered 0.5 mm elevation as a significant STE and had similar sensitivity (80%) and higher specificity (92.3%) [27]. Hussien A et al. declared that sensitivity and specificity were 77% and 65% when the cut-off point was considered 0.5 mm for detecting LM/3VD. Also, when they set higher cut-off point (> 1.5 mm), sensitivity and specificity reach to 14% and 98%, respectively. Likewise, cut-off point of 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm had highest NPV and PPV, respectively (78%, 91%) [29]. Kosuge M et al. followed the same pattern. Thus, 0.5 mm STE had highest sensitivity and NPV (91%, 99%, respectively) and 1.5 mm STE had highest specificity and PPV (98%, 58%, respectively) for diagnosis of LM/3VD. [31]. In this regard, the results of Misumida N et al.’s study were concordant with previous studies in this regard. A systematic review and meta-analysis showed overall sensitivity of LM and LM/3VD was 39% and 40%, respectively. Moreover, the overall specificity of LM and LM/3VD was 86% and 82%, respectively [57]. Our results represented overall sensitivity of LM and LM/3VD was 77% and 52%, respectively. And also, the overall specificity of LM/3VD was higher than LM (89% Vs 71%). Furthermore, STE ≥ 0.5 mm and STE ≥ 1 mm had the highest sensitivity for LM/3VD and LM (sensitivity LM = 90%, sensitivity LM/3VD = 76%). Additionally, cut-off points of 1 mm STE in lead aVR had the highest NPV (94%) and PPV (53%) with regard to LM. However, cut-off points of 0.5 mm and 1 mm STE in lead aVR had the highest NPV (89%) and PPV (75%) in terms of LM/3VD, respectively.

Limitation

In this study, we were not able to access the full text of some studies that might change our result.

Conclusion

STE in lead aVR increases the risk of LM and LM/3VD more than 3VD. Furthermore, STE ≥ 0‌0.5 mm and STE ≥ 1 mm were the best cut-off points to screen patients in terms of LM/3VD and LM, respectively. Additionally, the overall specificity of LM/3VD was greater than LM.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

STE:

St-elevation

LM:

Left main

3VD:

Three-vessel disease

ACS:

Acute coronary syndrome

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PPV:

Positive predictive value

OR:

Odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

IHD:

Ischemic heart disease

NSTEMI:

Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

STEMI:

ST-elevation myocardial infarction

LMCA:

Left main coronary artery stenosis

Electrocardiogram:

ECG

LAD:

Left anterior descending

References

  1. Lozano RNM, Foreman K, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380:2095–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Go ASMD, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:e28–292.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams R, Carnethon M, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association statistics committee and stroke statistics subcommittee. Circulation. 2009;119:480–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kosuge MKK, Ishikawa T, et al. Predictors of left main or three-vessel disease in patients who have acute coronary syndromes with non-ST-segment elevation. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1366–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Misumida N, Kobayashi A, Fox JT, Hanon S, Schweitzer P, Kanei Y. Predictive value of ST-segment elevation in lead aVR for left main and/or three-vessel disease in non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2016;21(1):91–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. BirnbaumY HD, Sclarovsky S, Herz I, Strasberg B, Rechavia E. Acute myocardial infarction entailing ST-segment elevation in lead aVL: electrocardiographic differentiation among occlusion of the left anterior descending, first diagonal, and first obtuse marginal coronary arteries. Am Heart J. 1996;131:38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tamura A. Significance of lead aVR in acute coronary syndrome. World J Cardiol. 2014;6(7):630–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gorgels APVM, Mulleneers R, de Zwaan C, Bar FW, Wellens HJ. Value of the electrocardiogram in diagnosing the number of severely narrowed coronary arteries in rest angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 1993;72:999–1003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wagner GS, Macfarlane P, Wellens H, et al. AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part VI: acute ischemia/ infarction: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association electrocardiography and arrhythmias committee, council on clinical cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society. Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1003–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abbase AH, ALjubawii AA. The Significance of ST segment elevation in lead aVR in acute anterior myocardial infarction. History. 2010.

  12. Alherbish A, Westerhout CM, Fu Y, White HD, Granger CB, Wagner G, et al. The forgotten lead: does aVR ST-deviation add insight into the outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients? Am Heart J. 2013;166(2):333–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Aygül N, Özdemir K, Tokaç M, Aydin MÜ, Vatankulu MA. Predictive value of lead aVR for lesions in the proximal portion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi. 2006;34(3):154–61. https://archivestsc.com/en/predictive-value-of-lead-avr-for-lesions-in-the-proximalportion-of-the-left-anterior-descending-coronary-artery-16156.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Aygul N, Ozdemir K, Tokac M, Aygul MU, Duzenli MA, Abaci A, et al. Value of lead aVR in predicting acute occlusion of proximal left anterior descending coronary artery and in-hospital outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an electrocardiographic predictor of poor prognosis. J Electrocardiol. 2008;41(4):335–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Badry MF, Elmaghraby KM, Helmy HA, Demitry SR. The added value of ST-elevation in lead aVR to clinical thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score in predicting the angiographic severity and extent of coronary artery disease in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. J Curr Med Res Pract. 2018;3(2):100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Baheti A, Hanson CA, McArdle M, Lall SK, Beller GA, Bourque JM. Lead aVR predicts early revascularization but not long-term events in patients referred for stress electrocardiography. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0249779.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Barrabés JA, Figueras J, Moure C, Cortadellas J, Soler-Soler J. Prognostic value of lead aVR in patients with a first non–ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2003;108(7):814–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Beyranvand MR, Piranfar MA, Mobini M, Pishgahi M. The relationship of st segment changes in lead avr with outcomes after myocardial infarction; a cross sectional study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2017;5(1):e73.

  19. Cerit L. Chicken or the egg: ST elevation in lead aVR or SYNTAX score. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2017;28(2):100–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen W, LV Chaoxia, Wang Li. Clinical significance of aVR leads in acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Chinese J Coal Industry Med. 2005;8(5):487–8.

  21. Chen Y, Jao YTFN, Fang CC, Yu CL, Chen C, Wang SP. Recognition of left main occlusion in acute coronary syndrome. Acta Cardiol Sin. 2004;20(3):139–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ducas R, Ariyarajah V, Philipp R, Ducas J, Elliott J, Jassal D, et al. The presence of ST-elevation in lead aVR predicts significant left main coronary artery stenosis in cardiogenic shock resulting from myocardial infarction: the Manitoba cardiogenic shock registry. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166(2):465–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gachchhadar PK, Mahmood M, Adhikary DK, Chowdhury MT, Sultan MAU, Mandal M, et al. Significance of ST segment elevation in lead aVR in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Univ Heart J. 2018;14(2):71–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghaffari S, Asadzadeh R, Tajlil A, Mohammadalian A, Pourafkari L. Predictive value of exercise stress test-induced ST-segment changes in leads V1 and avR in determining angiographic coronary involvement. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2017;22(1):e12370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goto Y, Tamura A, Kotoku M, Kadota J. ST-segment deviation in lead aVR on admission is not associated with left ventricular function at predischarge in first anterior wall ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108(5):625–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hengrussamee K, Kehasukcharoen W, Tansuphaswadikul S. Significance of lead aVR ST segment elevation in acute coronary syndrome. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88(10):1382.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hirano T, Tsuchiya K, Nishigaki K, Sou K, Kubota T, Ojio S, et al. Clinical features of emergency electrocardiography in patients with acute myocardial infarction caused by left main trunk obstruction. Circ J. 2006;70(5):525–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hossein S, Bahareh S, Mojgan JM. ST elevation in aVR lead: risk factors and clinical importance. Acta Medica Mediterr. 2021;37(3):1515–22.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hussien A, Battah A, Ashraf M, El-Deen TZ. Electrocardiography as a predictor of left main or three-vessel disease in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Egypt Heart J. 2011;63(2):103–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Katırcıbaşı MT, Koçum HT, Tekin A, Erol T, Tekin G, Baltalı M, et al. Exercise-induced ST-segment elevation in leads aVR and V1 for the prediction of left main disease. Int J Cardiol. 2008;128(2):240–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kosuge M, Ebina T, Hibi K, Morita S, Endo M, Maejima N, et al. An early and simple predictor of severe left main and/or three-vessel disease in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(4):495–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kosuge M, Ebina T, Hibi K, Morita S, Komura N, Hashiba K, et al. Early, accurate, non-invasive predictors of left main or 3-vessel disease in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Circulation J. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-08-1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kosuge M, Kimura K, Ebina T, Hibi K, Ishikawa T, Iwahashi N, et al. ST-segment elevation resolution in lead aVR: a strong predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart Assoc. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.72.1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kosuge M, Kimura K, Ishikawa T, Ebina T, Hibi K, Tsukahara K, et al. Combined prognostic utility of ST segment in lead aVR and troponin T on admission in non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(3):334–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kosuge M, Kimura K, Ishikawa T, Ebina T, Shimizu T, Hibi K, et al. Predictors of left main or three-vessel disease in patients who have acute coronary syndromes with non-ST-segment elevation. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(11):1366–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kosuge M, Kimura K, Ishikawa T, Endo T, Hongo Y, Shigemasa T, et al. ST-segment depression in lead aVR predicts predischarge left ventricular dysfunction in patients with reperfused anterior acute myocardial infarction with anterolateral ST-segment elevation. Am Heart J. 2001;142(1):51–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Marrero YM, Dopico RR, Rodríguez LOC, Fernández YC, Ramos RMG, González LEH. ST elevation in lead aVR and its short-term prognostic value in Acute Myocardial Infarction. Rev cuba cardiol cir cardiovasc. 2020;26(4):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nabati M, Emadi M, Mollaalipour M, Bagheri B, Nouraei M. ST-segment elevation in lead aVR in the setting of acute coronary syndrome. Acta Cardiol. 2016;71(1):47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nough H, Jorat M, Varasteravan H, Ahmadieh M, Tavakkolian N, Sheikhvatan M. The value of ST-segment elevation in lead aVR for predicting left main coronary artery lesion in patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome. Rom J Intern Med. 2012;50(2):159–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ozmen N, Yiginer O, Uz O, Kardesoglu E, Aparci M, Isilak Z, et al. ST elevation in the lead aVR during exercise treadmill testing may indicate left main coronary artery disease. Kardiol Polska. 2010;68(10):1107–10.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rathi N, Baloch MZ, Sachdewani RK, Memon F. Frequency of left main artery/three vessel disease predicted through ECG changes in patients presenting with non-ST segment acute coronary syndrome. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci. 2016;15(2):93–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rostoff P, Piwowarska W. ST segment elevation in lead aVR and coronary artery lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Kardiol Pol. 2006;64(1):8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rostoff P, Piwowarska W, Konduracka E, Libionka A, Bobrowska-Juszczuk M, Stopyra K, et al. Value of lead aVR in the detection of significant left main coronary artery stenosis in acute coronary syndrome. Kardiol Polska. 2005;62(2):128–37.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ruiz-Mateos B, Almendro-Delia M, Nunez-Gil IJ, García-Borbolla R, Vivas D, Seoane-García T, et al. Elevation of ST-segment in aVR is predictive of cardiogenic shock but not of multivessel disease in inferior myocardial infarction. J Electrocardiol. 2020;58:63–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Separham A, Sohrabi B, Tajlil A, Pourafkari L, Sadeghi R, Ghaffari S, et al. Prognostic value of positive T wave in lead aVR in patients with non-ST segment myocardial infarction. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2018;23(5):e12554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tang F, Sang G, Feng Y. Predictive value of aVR lead electrocardiogram for left coronary artery lesions. J Huaihai Med. 2008; 26(5):399–401. https://doi.org/10.14126/j.cnki.1008-7044.2008.05.023.

  47. Uddin MJ, Bari MS, Bari M, Islam MMN, Majumder MAAS, Islam Z, et al. Comparison of ST segment changes in lead aVR with in-hospital outcomes in patients with first attack of acute inferior ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc J. 2019;11(2):123–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wong CK, Gao W, Stewart RA, Benatar J, French JK, Aylward PE, et al. aVR ST elevation: an important but neglected sign in ST elevation acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(15):1845–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wong CK, Gao WZ, Stewart RAH, French JK, Aylward PEG, White HD, et al. The prognostic meaning of the full spectrum of aVR ST-segment changes in acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(3):384–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wu S, Ma H, Liu J, Du Z, He J, Li Y, et al. Prognostic significance of lead aVR in patients with a non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Chin J Arteriosclerosis. 2008;16(2):141.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yamaji H, Iwasaki K, Kusachi S, Murakami T, Hirami R, Hamamoto H, et al. Prediction of acute left main coronary artery obstruction by 12-lead electrocardiography: ST segment elevation in lead aVR with less ST segment elevation in lead V1. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(5):1348–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Yan AT, Yan RT, Kennelly BM, Anderson FA Jr, Budaj A, López-Sendón J, et al. Relationship of ST elevation in lead aVR with angiographic findings and outcome in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J. 2007;154(1):71–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yan Y, Lu W. Effect of lead aVR on recent prognosis in patients with non -ST -elevation acute coronary syndrome. Chin J Prim Med Pharm. 2015;19:2962–6.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Xiaohua Z, Wei D, Zhenguo JI, Liqiang Q. Prognostic value of ST segment elevation in aVR lead in patients with acute coronary syndrome. J Clin Intern Med. 2015;32(6):403–5. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-9057.2015.06.014.

  55. Kireyev D, Arkhipov MV, Zador ST, Paris JA, Boden WE. Clinical utility of aVR-The neglected electrocardiographic lead. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2010;15(2):175–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee GK, Hsieh YP, Hsu SW, Lan SJ, Soni K. Value of ST-segment change in lead aVR in diagnosing left main disease in Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome-a meta-analysis. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2019;24(6):e12692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hiltner E, Al Akshar A, Thanawala P, Hakeem A, Coromilas J, Kassotis J. Is isolated ST segment elevation in Lead aVR associated with high grade coronary artery disease? J Electrocardiol. 2020;62:170–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran

    Erfan Kazemi, Ali Mansoursamaei & Morteza Bijan

  2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran

    Ali Hosseinzadeh

  3. Clinical Research Development Unit, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Imam Ave., Shahroud, 3616911151, Iran

    Hossein Sheibani

Authors
  1. Erfan Kazemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Mansoursamaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Morteza Bijan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Hosseinzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hossein Sheibani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: E.K, H.S; acquisition of data: E.K, A.M, and M.B; interpretation of data: A.H; drafting the manuscript: A.K, A.M, M.B; final approval of the version to be published: H.S. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Sheibani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The current study was a result of the thesis supported by grant number “1234” in Shahroud University of medical science.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Forest plot represents pooled sensitivity of LM/3VD in different subgroups of ST-elevation in lead aVR. Left main/three vessel disease: LM/3VD. Figure S2. Forest plot is showing the pooled specificity of LM/3VD in variant size of ST-elevation in lead aVR. Left main/three vessel disease: LM/3VD. Figure S3. The forest plot is showing the pooled positive predictive value of LM/3VD according to the size of ST-elevation in lead aVR. Left main/three vessel disease: LM/3VD. Figure S4. Forest plot is showing the pooled negative predictive value of LM/3VD according to ST-elevation in lead aVR subgroups. Left main/three vessel disease: LM/3VD. Figure S5. Forest plot is showing the pooled sensitivity of LM according to ST-elevation in lead aVR subgroups. Figure S6. The forest plot is showing the pooled specificity of LM according to the ST-elevation in lead aVR subgroups. Figure S7. The forest plot is showing the pooled positive predictive value of LM according to the size of ST-elevation in lead aVR. Left main: LM. Figure S8. Forest plot is showing the pooled negative predictive value of LM according to ST-elevation in lead aVR subgroups. Left main: LM.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kazemi, E., Mansoursamaei, A., Bijan, M. et al. The prognostic effect of ST-elevation in lead aVR on coronary artery disease, and outcome in acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res 27, 302 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00931-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00931-5

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us