Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – June 15, 2015 To view the remainder of this post you must be logged in or have an ECGWeekly account. If you cannot view this post and are logged in, then the post is outside of your subscription coverage. Please contact support to have us check your account. Log In Click here to purchase an annual account By ECGWeekly Support|2016-12-21T17:14:55-05:00June 15th, 2015|5 Comments Share This Story, Choose Your Platform! facebooktwitterlinkedintumblrpinterestEmail Related Posts Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 25, 2020 Gallery Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 25, 2020 Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 18, 2020 Gallery Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 18, 2020 Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 11, 2020 Gallery Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 11, 2020 Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 4, 2020 Gallery Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – May 4, 2020 Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – April 27, 2020 Gallery Amal Mattu’s ECG Case of the Week – April 27, 2020 5 Comments Aldo Marano June 15, 2015 at 2:28 pmLog in to Reply Hi Amal, what do you think about the modified Sgarbossa C Rule from Dr. Smith? (Excessive Discordance if ST/S > 0,2?). He says it should be even more specific than the classical Sgarbossa C Rule (without PM) Greets from Germany Reza Yaghini June 15, 2015 at 10:52 pmLog in to Reply Hi Amal, Thank you for the wonderful presentations. I really enjoy learning this way, and is very effective. Can you please discuss about Early Repolarization, and DD for that? Reza David Roberts June 16, 2015 at 1:07 pmLog in to Reply Dr. Mattu, Thanks again for another excellent lesson. I teach EKG to Physician Assistant students at Bethel University in Paris, TN and your insight is always helpful in preparing for my lectures. We just finished the AV blocks and your “electrocardiographic polyuria” and the “secret in the PR interval” was a great way to present that material. Just to clarify… on the Sgarbossa criteria, in the video you say that criteria C is not very specific but under your Key Teaching Points it says it has a 99% specificity. Could you please clarify? Thanks again! Dave Roberts David White June 16, 2015 at 4:16 pmLog in to Reply Good afternoon Dr. Mattu. I have to echo a question about the modified Sgarbossa C criteria. If I am recalling correctly, the 5mm rule was noted as being hit and miss in your prior presentation, BUT the 25% rule was vastly more accurate. In this case, looking at V3, the measurements pass the 25% mark, which would meet the Sgarbossa C modified criteria. My question is to ask if the 5mm rule is applicable to the pacer patient and not the LBBB patient, or if the 25% rule should be the one applied to both instead? Thank you for your ongoing presentation of invaluable information. It is a constant source of increased practice depth and awareness that is truly priceless and valued as such. David White. Amal Mattu June 17, 2015 at 7:24 amLog in to Reply Thanks everyone for the comments. Sgarbossa Rule C didn’t work too well for LBBB but seems to work much better for pacers. The modified C rule using 25% has not been studied in pacers yet, so in the absence of having evidence/publications or lots of personal experience with this, I wouldn’t automatically recommend it. My guess is that it probably works with pacers also, but I would like to see data before making the recommendation. Reza, there’s a batch of BER articles that I’m going through and plan to do a video incorporating that info and cases as soon as I get through them. Thanks everyone! Amal Leave A Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.