FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2011071863> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2011071863 endingPage "68" @default.
• W2011071863 startingPage "68" @default.
• W2011071863 abstract "Jan Kors and colleagues' data on T-axis changes (Aug 22, p 601)1Kors AJ de Bruyne MC Hoes AW et al.T axis as an indicator of risk of cardiac events in elderly people.Lancet. 1998; 352: 601-605Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar certainly challenge received thought on the reliability of the T-wave as a single prognostic and diagnostic tool. 75 years ago, when it was first appreciated that T-wave changes could indicate the presence of cardiac ischaemia, Wilson and Finch2Wilson FN Finch R The effect of drinking iced water upon the form of the T deflection of the electrocardiogram.Heart. 1923; 10: 275-278Google Scholar showed that swallowed iced water could produce similar changes; these researchers correlated their observations with work in animals in which local cooling of the left ventricle caused identical T-wave changes. After these findings, Frank Wilson was hesitant to attribute isolated T-wave abnormalities to cardiac disease. Robert Grant was equally cautious when he translated Wilson's seminal vectorcardiographic studies into electrocardiographic terms,3Grant RP Clinical electrocardiography. The spatial vector approach. McGraw-Hill, New York1957Google Scholar and pointed out the potential importance of non-cardiac factors that could change T-vector magnitude rather than direction.The practising cardiologist, however, is uncertain what these vectorial changes mean in the conventional surface electrocardiogram: what did Kors and colleagues see and how could they translate their findings into the practical statements that Grant made part of electrocardiographic language? Without this information how can cardiologists and other physicians assess and use the results from the Rotterdam study, because they are familiar with comments like that of Fisch, that “non diagnostic ST-segment and T-wave changes are the most common ECG (electrocardiogram) abnormality and account for about 50% of the abnormal tracings recorded in a general hospital population and in 2·4% of all cardiograms”.4Fisch C Electrocardiography.in: Braunwald E Heart disease. A textbook of cardiovascular medicine (5th edition). WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia1997: 108-151Google ScholarFisch then emphasises the fact that “an isolated T-wave change must be interpreted with caution and must always be correlated with all available clinical and laboratory information. Misinterpretation of the significance of a T-wave abnormality is the most common cause of ‘iatrogenic ECG heart disease’.” How can we be guided successfully and distinguish those at risk of cardiac events from those at risk from unwise deductions? Jan Kors and colleagues' data on T-axis changes (Aug 22, p 601)1Kors AJ de Bruyne MC Hoes AW et al.T axis as an indicator of risk of cardiac events in elderly people.Lancet. 1998; 352: 601-605Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar certainly challenge received thought on the reliability of the T-wave as a single prognostic and diagnostic tool. 75 years ago, when it was first appreciated that T-wave changes could indicate the presence of cardiac ischaemia, Wilson and Finch2Wilson FN Finch R The effect of drinking iced water upon the form of the T deflection of the electrocardiogram.Heart. 1923; 10: 275-278Google Scholar showed that swallowed iced water could produce similar changes; these researchers correlated their observations with work in animals in which local cooling of the left ventricle caused identical T-wave changes. After these findings, Frank Wilson was hesitant to attribute isolated T-wave abnormalities to cardiac disease. Robert Grant was equally cautious when he translated Wilson's seminal vectorcardiographic studies into electrocardiographic terms,3Grant RP Clinical electrocardiography. The spatial vector approach. McGraw-Hill, New York1957Google Scholar and pointed out the potential importance of non-cardiac factors that could change T-vector magnitude rather than direction. The practising cardiologist, however, is uncertain what these vectorial changes mean in the conventional surface electrocardiogram: what did Kors and colleagues see and how could they translate their findings into the practical statements that Grant made part of electrocardiographic language? Without this information how can cardiologists and other physicians assess and use the results from the Rotterdam study, because they are familiar with comments like that of Fisch, that “non diagnostic ST-segment and T-wave changes are the most common ECG (electrocardiogram) abnormality and account for about 50% of the abnormal tracings recorded in a general hospital population and in 2·4% of all cardiograms”.4Fisch C Electrocardiography.in: Braunwald E Heart disease. A textbook of cardiovascular medicine (5th edition). WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia1997: 108-151Google Scholar Fisch then emphasises the fact that “an isolated T-wave change must be interpreted with caution and must always be correlated with all available clinical and laboratory information. Misinterpretation of the significance of a T-wave abnormality is the most common cause of ‘iatrogenic ECG heart disease’.” How can we be guided successfully and distinguish those at risk of cardiac events from those at risk from unwise deductions?" @default.
• W2011071863 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2011071863 creator A5055275033 @default.
• W2011071863 creator A5082623281 @default.
• W2011071863 date "1999-01-01" @default.
• W2011071863 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2011071863 title "T axis and cardiac events in elderly people" @default.
• W2011071863 cites W2091300538 @default.
• W2011071863 cites W625884735 @default.
• W2011071863 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)74841-8" @default.
• W2011071863 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10023973" @default.
• W2011071863 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2011071863 type Work @default.
• W2011071863 sameAs 2011071863 @default.
• W2011071863 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2011071863 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2011071863 hasAuthorship W2011071863A5055275033 @default.
• W2011071863 hasAuthorship W2011071863A5082623281 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C192244848 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C2778921608 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C2780040984 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C126322002 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C15744967 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C164705383 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C192244848 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C2778921608 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C2780040984 @default.
• W2011071863 hasConceptScore W2011071863C71924100 @default.
• W2011071863 hasIssue "9146" @default.
• W2011071863 hasLocation W20110718631 @default.
• W2011071863 hasLocation W20110718632 @default.
• W2011071863 hasOpenAccess W2011071863 @default.
• W2011071863 hasPrimaryLocation W20110718631 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2008723071 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2064525315 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2072497790 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2093502227 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2102363854 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2363486683 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2415818221 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2418173181 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W2605045221 @default.
• W2011071863 hasRelatedWork W3031418078 @default.
• W2011071863 hasVolume "353" @default.
• W2011071863 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2011071863 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2011071863 magId "2011071863" @default.
• W2011071863 workType "article" @default.