Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Electrocardiographic differences in patients with true and pseudo-resistant hypertension

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 36, pages 622–628 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in hypertensives, and patients with true resistant hypertension have an increased risk for premature cardiovascular events. Electrocardiography (ECG) has an essential role in the monitoring of hypertensive heart disease; however, little is known about the importance of ECG parameters in patients with resistant hypertension. We aimed to investigate whether fragmented QRS (fQRS) and frontal plane QRS-T angle, which are novel ECG parameters indicating myocardial damage, predict true resistant hypertension in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. Four hundred six hypertensive patients with resistant hypertension were prospectively enrolled for the study. Patients were divided into two groups as ‘true resistant’ or ‘pseudo-resistant’ hypertensives and compared regarding the ECG parameters. While 73 (18%) patients had true resistant hypertension, 333 (82%) patients had pseudo-resistant hypertension. The frequency of fQRS (47.9% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.001) and average frontal plane QRS-T angle (93.0° ± 19.7° vs. 53.8° ± 10.2°, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with true resistant hypertension compared to those with pseudo-resistant hypertension. Also, fQRS in anterior leads was significantly more frequent in patients with true resistant hypertension (57.1% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.001). Moreover, ROC curve analysis demonstrated that an increased frontal plane QRS-T angle > 90.75° predicted true resistant hypertension with a sensitivity 96% and specificity 61% (AUC:0.874, p < 0.001). Furthermore, multivariate analysis demonstrated that fQRS in anterior leads (OR: 1.251, 95% CI: 1.174–1.778, p = 0.002) and frontal plane QRS-T angle (OR: 1.388, 95% CI: 1.073–1.912, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of true resistant hypertension. In conclusion, fQRS and frontal plane QRS-T angle may be useful to predict true resistant hypertension in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flint AC, Conell C, Ren X, Banki NM, Chan SL, Rao VA, et al. Effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:243–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Prisant LM. Hypertensive heart disease. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2005;7:231–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Rosei EA, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018;2018:3021–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lehtonen AO, Puukka P, Varis J, Porthan K, Tikkanen JT, Nieminen MS, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of ECG abnormalities in normotensive and hypertensive individuals. J Hypertens. 2016;34:959–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bacharova L, Schocken D, Estes EH, Strauss D. The role of ECG in the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2014;10:257–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bacharova L, Estes EH. Left ventricular hypertrophy by the surface ECG. J Electrocardiol. 2017;50:906–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Judd E, Calhoun DA. Apparent and true resistant hypertension: definition, prevalence and outcomes. J Hum Hypertens. 2014;28:463–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Daugherty SL, Powers JD, Magid DJ, Tavel HM, Masoudi FA, Margolis KL, et al. Incidence and prognosis of resistant hypertension in hypertensive patients. Circulation. 2012;125:1635–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pietrasik G, Zareba W. QRS fragmentation: diagnostic and prognostic significance. Cardiol J. 2012;19:114–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jain R, Singh R, Yamini S, Das MK. Fragmented ECG as a risk marker in cardiovascular diseases. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2014;10:277–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Macfarlane PW. The frontal plane QRS-T angle. Europace. 2012;14:773–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oehler A, Feldman T, Henrikson CA, Tereshchenko LG. QRS‐T angle: a review. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2014;19:534–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Das MK, Zipes DP. Fragmented QRS: a predictor of mortality and sudden cardiac death. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6(3 Suppl):S8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aro AA, Huikuri HV, Tikkanen JT, Junttila MJ, Rissanen HA, Reunanen A, et al. QRS-T angle as a predictor of sudden cardiac death in a middle-aged general population. Europace. 2012;14:872–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bekar L, Katar M, Yetim M, Çelik O, Kilci H, Önalan O. Fragmented QRS complexes are a marker of myocardial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2016;44:554–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tanriverdi Z, Eyuboglu M, Bingol Tanriverdi T, Nurdag A, Demirbag R. The relationship between fragmented QRS and non-dipper status in hypertensive patients without left ventricular hypertrophy. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2017;39:680–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanriverdi Z, Unal B, Eyuboglu M, Bingol Tanriverdi T, Nurdag A, Demirbag R. The importance of frontal QRS-T angle for predicting non-dipper status in hypertensive patients without left ventricular hypertrophy. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2018;40:318–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(Suppl 1):S14–S31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:461–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Zareba W. QT interval: how to measure it and what is “normal”. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006;17:333–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Das MK, Khan B, Jacob S, Kumar A, Mahenthiran J. Significance of a fragmented QRS complex versus a Q wave in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2006;113:2495–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Calhoun DA, Jones D, Textor S, Goff DC, Murphy TP, Toto RD, et al. Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research. Circulation. 2008;117:e510–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaczmarski KR, Sozio SM, Chen J, Sang Y, Shafi T. Resistant hypertension and cardiovascular disease mortality in the US: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). BMC Nephrol. 2019;20:138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Díez J. Mechanisms of cardiac fibrosis in hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2007;9:546–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Salles GF, Cardoso CRL, Leocadio SM, Muxfeldt ES. Recent ventricular repolarization markers in resistant hypertension: are they different from the traditional QT interval? Am J Hypertens. 2008;21:47–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Salles G, Cardoso C, Nogueira AR, Bloch K, Muxfeldt E. Importance of the electrocardiographic strain pattern in patients with resistant hypertension. Hypertension. 2006;48:437–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Salles GF, Cardoso CRL, Muxfeldt ES. Prognostic value of ventricular repolarization prolongation in resistant hypertension: a prospective cohort study. J Hypertens. 2009;27:1094–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Eyuboglu M. Fragmented QRS as a marker of myocardial fibrosis in hypertension: a systematic review. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2019;21:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Eyuboglu M, Karabag Y, Karakoyun S, Senarslan O, Tanriverdi Z, Akdeniz B. Usefulness of fragmented QRS in hypertensive patients in the absence of left ventricular hypertrophy. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2017;19:861–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Eyuboglu M, Kucuk U, Senarslan O, Akdeniz B. Comparison of the presence of fragmented QRS complexes in the inferior versus the anterior leads for predicting coronary artery disease severity. Rev Port Cardiol. 2017;36:89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Eyuboglu M. Characteristics of circadian blood pressure pattern of hypertensive patients according to localization of fragmented QRS on electrocardiography. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2021;28:57–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. May O, Graversen CB, Johansen MO, Arildsen H. A large frontal QRS-T angle is a strong predictor of the long-term risk of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality in the diabetic population. J Diabetes Complications. 2017;31:551–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dilaveris P, Gialafos E, Pantazis A, Synetos A, Triposkiadis F, Gialafos J. The spatial QRS-T angle as a marker of ventricular repolarisation in hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2001;15:63–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is an original article and it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part, before submission to journal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Gaziosmanpasa University School of Medicine, Tokat, Turkey

    Mehmet Eyuboglu & Baris Acikel

Authors
  1. Mehmet Eyuboglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baris Acikel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Eyuboglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eyuboglu, M., Acikel, B. Electrocardiographic differences in patients with true and pseudo-resistant hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 36, 622–628 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-021-00559-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-021-00559-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links