Variability and concordance of Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon electrocardiographic criteria in hypertensive patients.

AIM: To assess the variability and concordance of left ventricular hypertrophy electrocardiographic (LVH-ECG) criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Convenience sampling of hypertensive subjects without coronary disease or bundle branch blocks. Two electrocardiograms (ECGs) were performed on each patient. Two investigators carried out two blind-readings of each ECG (Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon criteria). The between-rater and within-rater reliability were assessed (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC). Poor concordance was defined: mean voltage difference between both ECGs >2 mm; 824 ECG readings were performed in 103 subjects (58.3% females), aged 66.8±8.8 years, mean blood pressure 141±15.10/78±9.0 mmHg. The between-rater ICCs of the baseline ECG were 0.97(95% CI 0.96-0.98) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) for Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon criteria, respectively. Poor concordance was found in 39.8% and in 41.7% of the cases for Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon criteria, respectively. Systolic blood pressure was found to be significant and positively associated with both criteria. Elderly hypertensive subjects, with higher ECG voltages and lower pulse pressure presented poor concordance of Cornell criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The between-rater and within-rater reliability of Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon criteria is minimal. Approximately 40% of hypertensive subjects presented poor concordance in a second ECG. Older patients with lower pulse pressure and higher baseline voltages presented poorer reproducibility of LVH-ECG criteria.

Interarm blood pressure measurement and the reference-arm assignment variability.

OBJECTIVE: The arm with the higher blood pressure (BP) is assigned as the follow up arm for hypertensive patients (reference-arm). We evaluated the reproducibility of this assignment. METHODS: BP was measured simultaneously on both arms with a double cuff validated device in two visits separated <10 days (two sets of three readings per visit). Two reference-arms were assigned in each visit (the arm with higher BP, at least ≥1 mmHg). The intravisit and intervisit agreements of this assignment were evaluated. RESULTS: We included 313 hypertensive patients. First visit mean right arm BP was 131.6 (16.6)/75.3 (9.4) mmHg and left arm BP was 132.4 (16.9)/75.7 (9.7) mmHg (P = 0.002). Intravisit concordance at the first and second visits were κ = 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.516-0.696] and κ = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.356-0.555], respectively. Therefore, 21.8% of patients (at the first visit) and 29.1% (at the second visit) with the right arm as the reference-arm in the first round of readings changed to the left arm in the same visit in the second round of readings. The intervisit κ index was 0.25 [95% CI, 0.147-0.365]. After that, 36.8% of patients with the right arm as the reference-arm at the first visit changed to the left arm at the second visit. The subgroup (9.5%) with an interarm systolic BP difference ≥10 mmHg at the first visit did not differ significantly from the rest of patients. CONCLUSION: The reference-arm assignment agreement is weak to moderate. The assignment of the reference-arm should be individualized and not considered as definitive.

A world without the olfactory dimension.

This article aims to describe what is it like to perceive reality when suffering from congenital anosmia. Nevertheless, this objective entails a fundamental difficulty. Since I have never had the experience of olfaction, it seems natural to me to live in a world lacking the olfactory dimension; this subjective perception is the only one I know and in consequence it is difficult to describe. For this reason, in recent years I have begun to develop long conversations with other people suffering from congenital anosmia, people who have lost their sense of olfaction in adulthood and also people with a good sense of smell. My goal is to draw a map showing the principal differences that might allow us to develop a systematic comparison. Obviously, this is not an experimental or quantitative scientific procedure, but only a modest attempt to compare personal stories about subjective experiences. It is a philosophical-literary exercise, and does not aim to be anything other than that. But I hope it will help to formulate meaningful questions, which would then need a properly scientific approach. In the first part of this article I want to try to describe how I became aware that other people could smell; and in a second part, I will try to examine the consequences of anosmia in different areas of everyday life: nourishment, relationships with people, own body perception, natural or urban environments perception, time perception, and finally aesthetic appreciation and the implications of living in a world without stench.