Objective: to analyze the clinical effect of dynamic electrocardiogram and traditional electrocardiogram in the diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis. Methods: a total of 100 patients with coronary atherosclerosis who...Objective: to analyze the clinical effect of dynamic electrocardiogram and traditional electrocardiogram in the diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis. Methods: a total of 100 patients with coronary atherosclerosis who were examined in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2020 were enrolled. Previous ecg and ambulatory ECG examinations were performed respectively. Depending on the results, they were divided into routine and dynamic test groups. The positive monitoring rates of the two methods for myocardial blood deficiency and different types of arrhythmia were compared. Results: the positive rate of myocardial ischemia in conventional test group was 52%, while that in dynamic test group was lower than 92% (P<0.05). Among different types of arrhythmia, the positive rate of atrioventricular block in routine detection group was 5%, while that in dynamic detection group was 28% (P < 0.05). The positive rate of short array ventricular tachycardia was 8% in the conventional detection group and 28% in the dynamic detection group (P < 0.05). The positive rate of ventricular arrhythmia monitoring was 41% in conventional test group and 69% in dynamic test group (P<0.05). The positive monitoring rate of atrial arrhythmia in conventional and dynamic test groups was 45% and 66% respectively (P<0.05). Conclusion: the positive rate of dynamic electrocardiogram on myocardial ischemia and arrhythmia is obviously higher than that of conventional electrocardiogram.展开更多
文摘Objective: to analyze the clinical effect of dynamic electrocardiogram and traditional electrocardiogram in the diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis. Methods: a total of 100 patients with coronary atherosclerosis who were examined in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2020 were enrolled. Previous ecg and ambulatory ECG examinations were performed respectively. Depending on the results, they were divided into routine and dynamic test groups. The positive monitoring rates of the two methods for myocardial blood deficiency and different types of arrhythmia were compared. Results: the positive rate of myocardial ischemia in conventional test group was 52%, while that in dynamic test group was lower than 92% (P<0.05). Among different types of arrhythmia, the positive rate of atrioventricular block in routine detection group was 5%, while that in dynamic detection group was 28% (P < 0.05). The positive rate of short array ventricular tachycardia was 8% in the conventional detection group and 28% in the dynamic detection group (P < 0.05). The positive rate of ventricular arrhythmia monitoring was 41% in conventional test group and 69% in dynamic test group (P<0.05). The positive monitoring rate of atrial arrhythmia in conventional and dynamic test groups was 45% and 66% respectively (P<0.05). Conclusion: the positive rate of dynamic electrocardiogram on myocardial ischemia and arrhythmia is obviously higher than that of conventional electrocardiogram.
