Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for CardioSabz

Channel

CardioSabz

@cardiosabz

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry

520subscribers

+59 since we began measuring on 1 September 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1004311080823
TypeChannel
Username@cardiosabz
CreatedBetween 1 June 2026 and 5 August 2026 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded1 September 2026
Last confirmed live19 September 2026
Measurements held4
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 19 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/cardiosabz

Topic

Health & wellness — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 21 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 82% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

461520490.51 September 2026 — 461 subscribers1 September 2026 — 461 subscribers10 September 2026 — 499 subscribers19 September 2026 — 520 subscribers1 September 202619 September 2026
4 measurements spanning 18 days, net +59. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 452–529 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
19 Sept 2026, 17:00520+21
10 Sept 2026, 13:01499+38
1 Sept 2026, 07:00461no change
1 Sept 2026, 06:45461first reading

Engagement

14 posts held, back to 5 August 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
21.5%
avg views ÷ 520 subscribers
Avg views / post
112
6 posts measured
Reaction rate
3.57%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
6
of 14 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 29 August 2026
Posts held14 (5 August 202629 August 2026)
Views total672
Reactions total24
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken1 Sept 2026, 07:00 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

What this channel posts

Video runtime
6s
Average length
6s

Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no mark.

Reaction mix

96 reactions across 14 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 69.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
6769.8%
1515.6%
🔥99.38%
22.08%
🆒22.08%
👍11.04%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 14 of the 14 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 96 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 14 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 29 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

29 Aug 2026, 11:37 UTC115 views3 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

تصویر Spade-like در اکوی HCM که بهش اشاره شد. قبلا هم اشاره کردم بودم تشخیص OMI توی LVH -فرای بالین بیمار- یه سری معیار داره. معیارهایی که به نفع OMI هست رو قبلا گفته بودم. باز هم مرور می‌کنیم: 1⃣ Discordant STE > 1/6 (17%) preceding S-wave 2⃣ STE in V1-V3 > 25% of the preceding QRS This is very insensitive: STE in LVH rarely exceeds 4 mm. If an S-wave is 30 mm in depth, STE would have to exceed 7 mm to meet cri

3

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

29 Aug 2026, 11:31 UTC107 views4 reactionsread 1 September 2026

Apical HCM: واریانتی با زمینه خانوادگی کمتر که نیازمند شک بالینی بالاتری است ✅ در مقایسه با فرم کلاسیک، Apical HCM بیشتر یک بیماری اسپورادیک (تک‌گیر) است و درصد کمتری از بیماران سابقه خانوادگی مثبت را ذکر می‌کنند. جهش‌های ژنی تنها در ۱۳٪ از موارد این واریانت یافت می‌شوند، درحالی‌که این میزان در فرم «کلاسیک» HCM (که باعث هیپرتروفی نامتقارن سپتوم می‌شود) حدود ۴۰٪ است. امواج T منفیِ «غول‌آسا» (Giant negative T waves >

🔥3👍1

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

29 Aug 2026, 11:14 UTC90 views3 reactionsread 1 September 2026

✅ فالوآپ بیمار: تروپونین اولیه‌ی بیمار اومد 54 g/dl که کمی بیشتر از حد نرمال بود -زیر 26 g/dl. آنژیوگرافی عروق کرونر فاقد یافته غیرطبیعی بود و عروق کرونر کاملاً صاف و بدون درگیری (Smooth) رؤیت شدند. اکوکاردیوگرافی دقیقِ انجام‌شده حین بستری، هیپرتروفی شدید بطن چپ (LVH) را نشان داد که با ضخیم‌شدگی «بسیار شدید» در ناحیه آپیکال همراه بود و با تشخیص کاردیومیوپاتی هیپرتروفیک آپیکال (Apical HCM) مطابقت داشت. هیچ‌گونه شواهد

3

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

29 Aug 2026, 11:10 UTC91 views4 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Video

براشون اکوی Bedside انجام شد و اینم گزارش اکو: 🟡 Parasternal long axis (PLAX) view: The apex is incompletely imaged, but there is severe left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy of both the mid-anteroseptal and apical regions, with LV cavity obliteration in systole Apical LV wall thickness was measured at 23mm 🟢 Parasternal short axis (PSAX) view: PSAX view just proximal to apex, with papillary muscle partially in view

4

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

29 Aug 2026, 11:02 UTC109 views4 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

عذرخواهم بابت تاخیر پیش اومده. بریم سراغ کیس‌مون. 🟢 بیمار واضحا معیارهای وابسته و غیروابسته به ولتاژ LVH رو پر می‌کنه. توی تصویرهایی که براتون قرار دادم این معیارها رو با نوار بعد از برطرف شدن درد بیمار رو می‌بینید. یادتون باشه بیماری که بدون شرح HTN و با LVH میاد همیشه به HCM شک کنید. 🟣 یه معیاری که همیشه خودم استفاده می‌کنم و توی این‌جا نیورده Modified Conell هست، که میگه: R wave in aVL > 11 to 13 mm بیانگر LV

2🔥2

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

27 Aug 2026, 15:43 UTC160 views6 reactionsread 1 September 2026

Posted without readable text

3🆒2🔥1

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

23 Aug 2026, 19:30 UTC274 views13 reactionsread 1 September 2026

اگه موردی بود درباره‌ی کیس می‌تونید توی کامنت‌ مطرح کنید. درس WCT رو با کیس‌های بیشتری کامل‌تر می‌کنیم نکاتش رو و بعد از اون مطالب جمع‌بندیش رو می‌ذاریم. روزتون هم مبارک! ❤️

13

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

23 Aug 2026, 19:09 UTC246 views6 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

هروقت به Wide complex tachycardia (WCT) برخوردیم باید بین SVT و یا VTach بودن تاکی‌آریتمی افتراق بدیم. دو الگوریتم Vereckei و Brugada برای افتراق این دو هستن. یه الگوریتم دیگه هم هست که بعد اشاره می‌کنم. این‌جا براتون الگوریتم ورکی رو آوردم. اگه ازش استفاده کنید متوجه می‌شید که ریتم SVT هست. ❇️ شاید امواج فیبلیراتوری رو خوب نبینیم اما نامنظم بودن این تاکی‌آریتمی، ما رو می‌بره سمت AFib و یه جورایی می‌تونه بر ضد AV d

42

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

22 Aug 2026, 15:38 UTC240 views4 reactionsread 1 September 2026

Posted without readable text

4

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

12 Aug 2026, 10:46 UTC422 views11 reactionsread 1 September 2026

💊 درد بیمار Cardiac هست. چیزی که به‌طور مرسوم می‌گفتن Typical chest pain. حالا میگن از اصطلاح Cardiac و Possible cardiac و Non cardiac استفاده کنیم بهتره به‌جای تیپیک و غیرتیپیک. همین کلمه‌ی Possible باعث می‌شه بررسی‌های بیشتری کنیم بیمار رو و رهاش نکنیم بخاطر برچسب غیرتیپیک خوردن. 📖 بیمار LVH داره. که متعاقبا Strain pattern رو هم همراهش داره. همین باعث می‌شه لیدهای سمت راست قفسه‌ی سینه‌ای STE داشته باشن. دقیقا مثل

11

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

12 Aug 2026, 09:41 UTC379 views9 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

نحوه‌ی مدیریت درد قفسه‌ی سینه حین دیالیز #Chest_pain #Dialysis https://t.me/cardiosabz

9

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

11 Aug 2026, 18:35 UTC363 views7 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Poll

اگر قرار باشد TPI چک کنیم؛ کدام نوع در این بیمار بهتر است؟

  1. Qualitative35%
  2. Quantitative65%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

🔥322

Signed Mohammad Shahrestani

Showing the 12 most recent of 14 posts we hold for @cardiosabz. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Polls

The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

11 Aug 2026, 18:35 UTCAnonymous Quiz46 voters

اگر قرار باشد TPI چک کنیم؛ کدام نوع در این بیمار بهتر است؟

  1. Qualitative35%
  2. Quantitative65%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 14 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 29 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

Mentions

Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.

Named by

Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 19 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“CardioSabz” (@cardiosabz), 520 subscribers as measured 19 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cardiosabz.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.