IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0246305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peguero-Lo Presti criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zongying Yu
  • Jie Song
  • Li Cheng
  • Shasha Li
  • Qun Lu
  • Yafeng Zhang
  • Xiaoci Lin
  • Dadong Liu

Abstract

Background: The Peguero-Lo Presti criteria are novel electrocardiographic (ECG) diagnostic criteria for the detection of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and represent the sum of the amplitude of the deepest S wave in any lead with the S wave in lead V4 (SD+SV4). The diagnostic efficacy of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria in LVH is still debatable. We aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria and compared them with those of the Cornell voltage index to assess their overall performance in LVH diagnosis. Methods: Electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from their inception until May 18, 2020. Trials written in English that investigated the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria for detecting LVH were included. Data were independently extracted and analyzed by two investigators. Results: A total of 51 records were screened, and 6 trials comprising 13,564 patients were finally included. A bivariate analysis showed that the sensitivity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.58) was higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.29, 95% CI 0.23–0.36) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.24, 95% CI 0.21–0.27); the diagnostic accuracy of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.69, 95% CI 0.65–0.73) was also higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.67, 95% CI 0.62–0.71) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.28, 95% CI 0.25–0.32); and the specificity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.90) was similar to that of the Cornell voltage index (0.92, 95% CI 0.89–0.95) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.94, 95%CI 0.88–0.97). Two trials (including 12,748 patients) were discharged because they included partly healthy subjects and accounted for substantial heterogeneity. Pooled analysis of the remaining 4 trials (including 816 patients) showed that the sensitivity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.56, 95% CI 0.51–0.61) was also higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.36, 95% CI 0.31–0.42) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.24, 95% CI 0.18–0.31); the diagnostic accuracy of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.84, 95% CI 0.80–0.87) was also higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.54, 95% CI 0.50–0.58) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.38, 95% CI 0.34–0.42); and the specificity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.90, 95% CI 0.87–0.92) was similar to that of the Cornell voltage index (0.93, 95% CI 0.88–0.96) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.97, 95% CI 0.90–0.99). Both the likelihood ratio and posttest probability of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria and Cornell voltage index were moderate. Conclusion: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria-based ECG diagnostic method for LVH has high sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy and should be applied in clinical practice settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Zongying Yu & Jie Song & Li Cheng & Shasha Li & Qun Lu & Yafeng Zhang & Xiaoci Lin & Dadong Liu, 2021. "Peguero-Lo Presti criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0246305
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246305
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246305&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0246305?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0246305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.