ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Poor R wave progression (PRWP) and reversed R wave progression (RRWP) have long been noted in electrocardiograms as potential indicators of anterior wall fibrosis or chronic coronary artery disease; however, the quantity and quality of evidence supporting these associations warrants closer examination. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to assess the breadth of evidence regarding the diagnostic significance of PRWP and RRWP, explore the extent of research, study populations and methodologies, and the presence of gaps in knowledge regarding these electrocardiographic phenomena and their association with coronary diseases. DESIGN: We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, covering literature on PRWP or RRWP in the context of myocardial infarction, ischemia, or fibrosis from any time period and in any language. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included in this review, highlighting the severe paucity of data. No high-quality accuracy studies have been identified, and existing research suffers from methodological issues, in particular selection bias. Prevalence and prognostic studies showed significant heterogeneity in terms of definitions and outcomes, which contributes to an alarming risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of solid evidence for PRWP and RRWP as diagnostic markers for acute and chronic coronary artery disease necessitates caution in clinical interpretation. Future research should focus on well-designed case-control studies to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of these markers. Until robust evidence is available, the reliance on PRWP/RRWP for diagnosing anterior infarction should be discouraged, reflecting a gap between clinical practice and evidence-based medicine.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND Poor R wave progression (PRWP) and reversed R wave progression (RRWP) have long been noted in electrocardiograms as potential indicators of anterior wall fibrosis or chronic coronary artery disease; however, the quantity and quality of evidence supporting these associations warrants closer examination. OBJECTIVE The aim of this scoping review is to assess the breadth of evidence regarding the diagnostic significance of PRWP and RRWP, explore the extent of research, study populations and methodologies, and the presence of gaps in knowledge regarding these electrocardiographic phenomena and their association with coronary diseases. DESIGN We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, covering literature on PRWP or RRWP in the context of myocardial infarction, ischemia, or fibrosis from any time period and in any language. RESULTS A total of 20 studies were included in this review, highlighting the severe paucity of data. No high-quality accuracy studies have been identified, and existing research suffers from methodological issues, in particular selection bias. Prevalence and prognostic studies showed significant heterogeneity in terms of definitions and outcomes, which contributes to an alarming risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS The lack of solid evidence for PRWP and RRWP as diagnostic markers for acute and chronic coronary artery disease necessitates caution in clinical interpretation. Future research should focus on well-designed case-control studies to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of these markers. Until robust evidence is available, the reliance on PRWP/RRWP for diagnosing anterior infarction should be discouraged, reflecting a gap between clinical practice and evidence-based medicine.
