Why complicate an important task? An orderly display of the limb leads in the 12-lead electrocardiogram and its implications for recognition of acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In the standard ECG display, limb leads are presented in a non-anatomical sequence: I, II, III, aVR, aVL, aVF. The Cabrera system is a display format which instead presents the limb leads in a cranial/left-to-caudal/right sequence, i.e. in an anatomically sequential order. Lead aVR is replaced in the Cabrera display by its inverted version, -aVR, which is presented in its logical place between lead I and lead II. MAIN TEXT: In this debate article possible implications of using the Cabrera display, instead of the standard, non-contiguous lead display, are presented, focusing on its use in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. The importance of appreciating reciprocal limb-lead ECG changes and the diagnostic and prognostic value of including aVR or lead -aVR in ECG interpretation in acute coronary syndrome is covered. Illustrative cases and ECGs are presented with both the standard and contiguous limb lead display for each ECG. A contiguous lead display is useful when diagnosing acute coronary syndrome in at least 3 ways: 1) when contiguous leads are present adjacent to each other, identification of ST elevation in two contiguous leads is simple; 2) a contiguous lead display facilitates understanding of lead relationships as well as reciprocal changes; 3) it makes the common neglect of lead aVR unlikely. CONLUSIONS: It is logical to display the limb leads in their sequential anatomical order and it may have advantages both in diagnostics and ECG learning.

The prognostic value of haemodynamic parameters in the recovery phase of an exercise test. The Finnish Cardiovascular Study.

We tested the hypothesis that the change from the peak to recovery values of systolic arterial pressure (SAP recovery) and rate-pressure product (RPP recovery) can be used to predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients referred to a clinical exercise stress test. As a part of the Finnish Cardiovascular Study (FINCAVAS), consecutive patients (n=2029; mean age+/-SD=57+/-13 years; 1290 men and 739 women) with a clinically indicated exercise test using a bicycle ergometer were included in the present study. Capacities of attenuated SAP recovery, RPP recovery and heart rate recovery (HRR) to stratify the risk of death were estimated. During a follow-up (mean+/-s.d.) of 47+/-13 months, 122 patients died; 58 of the deaths were cardiovascular and 33 were SCD. In Cox regression analysis after adjustment for the peak level of the variable under assessment, age, sex, use of beta-blockers, previous myocardial infarction and other common coronary risk factors, the hazard ratio of the continuous variable RPP recovery (in units 1000 mm Hg x b.p.m.) was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.98) for SCD, 0.87 (0.78-0.97) for cardiovascular mortality, and 0.87 (0.81 to 0.94) for all-cause mortality. SAP recovery was not a predictor of mortality. The relative risks of having HRR below 18 b.p.m., a widely used cutoff point, were as follows: for SCD 1.28 (0.59-2.81, ns), for cardiovascular mortality 2.39 (1.34-4.26) and for all-cause mortality 2.40 (1.61-3.58). In conclusion, as a readily available parameter, RPP recovery is a promising candidate for a prognostic marker.

Antianginal efficacy of the combination of felodipine-metoprolol 10/100 mg compared with each drug alone in patients with stable effort-induced angina pectoris: a multicenter parallel group study. The TRAFFIC Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial was to compare the antianginal and antiischemic efficacy of a combination tablet of felodipine-metoprolol 10/100 mg once daily with both drugs given separately once daily in patients with stable effort-induced angina pectoris. The secondary objective was to compare the tolerability of the 3 treatments. METHODS: The main criteria for inclusion were stable effort-induced angina pectoris for at least 2 months before the enrollment and a positive bicycle exercise test result. Patients were allocated to once-daily treatment with either felodipine-metoprolol 10/100 mg, felodipine 10 mg, or metoprolol 100 mg. The duration of active double-blind treatment was 4 weeks. There were 3 primary efficacy variables in the study; time until end of exercise, time until onset of chest discomfort, and time until 1-mm ST depression during a standardized exercise test. RESULTS: The number of patients randomized was 397. There was a statistically significant improvement in time until end of exercise with felodipine-metoprolol 10/100 mg compared with metoprolol 100 mg (P =.04) and felodipine 10 mg compared with metoprolol 100 mg ( P =.03). However, for time until onset of pain or time until 1-mm ST-depression there were no significant differences among the treatment groups. At highest comparable workload, ST depression was less pronounced with felodipine-metoprolol than with metoprolol alone (P =.04), and the rate-pressure product was significantly lower in the groups receiving felodipine-metoprolol and metoprolol than in the group receiving felodipine alone. The combination and metoprolol were better tolerated than felodipine alone. CONCLUSIONS: In stable angina pectoris, the combination felodipine-metoprolol 10/100 mg and felodipine 10 mg alone increased exercise time compared with metoprolol 100 mg. The combination tablet and metoprolol 100 mg alone showed a more favorable tolerability profile than felodipine 10 mg alone.