Responses

Simplifying thrombolysis decisions in patients with left bundle branch block
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    LBBB with MI

    Dear Editor,

    I don't think the sgarbossa criteria are that useful. In the example ECG, the 2 strikingly obvious criteria that would indicate acute MI are the hyperacute T waves laterally (the absolute height of the T wave being greater than that of the the QRS) and the high ST to T ratio laterally. It is only Anterior MIs that are difficult to diagnose in the presence of LBBB. The presence of hyperacute Ts is s...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Simpler thrombolysis decisions in patients with LBBB

    Dear Editor,

    I read the article by Reuben and Mann “simplifying thrombolysis decisions in patients with left bundle branch block” with considerable interest.[1] This is a useful way of presenting the Sgarbossa criteria, which have high specificity for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Unfortunately, however, these criteria are far too insensitive to exclude MI, being present in only 20% of patients with left bun...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Revision for flow chart - figure 3

    Dear Editor,

    I read this article by A Reuben and C Mann with interest and congratulate them on their approach and success with this work. They have succinctly clarified a decision tree which previously took some mental effort to navigate.

    The heading for the third box in the middle of figure 3 should read ST depression > 1mm rather than as stated elevation.

    While this undoubtedly represents a t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.