z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Determination and Interpretation of the QT Interval
Author(s) -
Arja S. Vink,
Benjamin Neumann,
Krystien V.V. Lieve,
Moritz F. Sinner,
Nynke Hofman,
Soufiane El Kadi,
Melissa H.A. Schoenmaker,
Hanneke M.J. Slaghekke,
Jonas S.S.G. de Jong,
SallyAnn B. Clur,
Nico A. Blom,
Stefan Kääb,
Arthur A.M. Wilde,
Pieter G. Postema
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
circulation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 7.795
H-Index - 607
eISSN - 1524-4539
pISSN - 0009-7322
DOI - 10.1161/circulationaha.118.033943
Subject(s) - medicine , qt interval , long qt syndrome , intraclass correlation , percentile , cohort , cardiology , confidence interval , cutoff , statistics , clinical psychology , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , psychometrics
Background: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is associated with potentially fatal arrhythmias. Treatment is very effective, but its diagnosis may be challenging. Importantly, different methods are used to assess the QT interval, which makes its recognition difficult. QT experts advocate manual measurements with the tangent or threshold method. However, differences between these methods and their performance in LQTS diagnosis have not been established. We aimed to assess similarities and differences between these 2 methods for QT interval analysis to aid in accurate QT assessment for LQTS. Methods: Patients with a confirmed pathogenic variant inKCNQ1 (LQT1),KCNH2 (LQT2), orSCN5A (LQT3) genes and their family members were included. Genotype-positive patients were identified as LQTS cases and genotype-negative family members as controls. ECGs were analyzed with both methods, providing inter- and intrareader validity and diagnostic accuracy. Cutoff values based on control population’s 95th and 99th percentiles, and LQTS-patients’ 1st and 5th percentiles were established based on the method to correct for heart rate, age, and sex.Results: We included 1484 individuals from 265 families, aged 33±21 years and 55% females. In the total cohort, QTTangent was 10.4 ms shorter compared with QTThreshold (95% limits of agreement±20.5 ms,P <0.0001). For all genotypes, QTTangent was shorter than QTThreshold (P 0.96), and a high diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve >0.84). Using the current guideline cutoff (QTc interval 480 ms), both methods had similar specificity but yielded a different sensitivity. QTc interval cutoff values of QTTangent were lower compared with QTThreshold and different depending on the correction for heart rate, age, and sex.Conclusion: The QT interval varies depending on the method used for its assessment, yet both methods have a high validity and can both be used in diagnosing LQTS. However, for diagnostic purposes current guideline cutoff values yield different results for these 2 methods and could result in inappropriate reassurance or treatment. Adjusted cutoff values are therefore specified for method, correction formula, age, and sex. In addition, a freely accessible online probability calculator for LQTS (www.QTcalculator.org ) has been made available as an aid in the interpretation of the QT interval.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom