EKG question

[jes227]

On a recent EKG I had done earlier this month,
It shows "RSR ' or QR pattern in V1 suggests right ventricular conduction delay 426.89". 20 year old female, in good health, with a good echocardiogram. What does this mean, and is it something to worry about?

[jes227]

Thanks. That was my concern here, because my ekg also reads "normal ekg". Which to me, a conduction delay doesn't quite seen normal, and left me confused.

[Bromley]

Hi. I question this assessment for three reasons.

1. This might be a right bundle branch conduction delay, ie a conduction disorder of some unspecified type (check the ICD code), although whether that would be a real worry is also unspecified.

2. The note says that there is a normal echo. This is not the same thing as an ecg. So it does not follow that the ecg is normal because the echo is normal.

3. The note is not validated by the input of a physician, nor subsequently by your individual assessment of the physician and his diagnosis. There are always two steps. Testing, then validation. Validation includes the doctor's assessment of the test results, as well as your assessment of the test results and the doctor.


Don't get me wrong. I dont think you need to be able to read the ecg. But I think it helps to know just what you expect in terms of thoroughness, especially for heart disorders. I think its fine if people want to appreciate an ecg, or to discuss an ecg for learning purposes. But conclusions about heart information sometimes drive decision making that can make important differences. It is therefore very important that you get facts used for these decisions from the right source.

Yes. Knowing what the "right source" is is also a problem. The person doing the diagnosis, no matter who they are, has to take the problem down to its bare root cause far enough to make a proper medical decision. It can be hard for us rookies to pass judgement.

The thing is though I see no explanation from anyone here as to why the unspecified conduction disorder is considered normal. The conclusion then does not pass my sniff test because I do not understand it well enough to know whether the doctor even looked at the ecg and determined that the conduction delay was normal. Nor do I know what the conduction delay is, and what is considered normal. Nor have I been given a specific reason for the conduction delay.

Even if the ICD code is commonly associated with a normal finding. We need assurance that who ever put the code on the test result knew what they were talking about. The physician is in the best position to validate this, and you want to get your result from them.

No offense intended here, just stating the way I like to do things. I am certainly impressed with the information I have seen folks post here in the past and definitely respect their input.

[tom_h]

EKG machines have progressed to a point where they can analyze the data coming off the leads, the timing, waveforms, etc., and pronounce a diagnosis.  This is typically used as a guide for the cardiologist to go on.  The diagnosis is based on set criteria.  The physician should factor in other criteria and make a judgment.  In your case, it appears that you have a good EKG.  Your condition at the time of the EKG is a common "anomaly", and should be considered within the boundaries of "normal".