1967
DOI: 10.1159/000165867
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Right Bundle Branch Block in the ‘Normal’ Heart and in Right Ventricular Hypertrophy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 15 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fact that the QRS complex was not prolonged in these patients does not necessarily militate against this theory in that in patients with or without right ventricular hypertrophy and mild right bundlebranch block, increased right ventricular precordial potentials can be produced without significant prolongation of the QRS duration. 16 The findings outlined call our attention to the extremely complicated heart muscle-lead relationship, when attempts are made to correlate body surface potentials with anatomic situations. The simplified relationship between hemodynamic parameters such as intraventricular pressure17 and body surface potentials should be cautiously considered and restricted to a very selected group of patients in whom the many other variables are relatively constant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fact that the QRS complex was not prolonged in these patients does not necessarily militate against this theory in that in patients with or without right ventricular hypertrophy and mild right bundlebranch block, increased right ventricular precordial potentials can be produced without significant prolongation of the QRS duration. 16 The findings outlined call our attention to the extremely complicated heart muscle-lead relationship, when attempts are made to correlate body surface potentials with anatomic situations. The simplified relationship between hemodynamic parameters such as intraventricular pressure17 and body surface potentials should be cautiously considered and restricted to a very selected group of patients in whom the many other variables are relatively constant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%