INTRODUCTION: The role of QT dispersion as a predictor of arrhythmia vulnerability has not been consistently confirmed in the literature. Therefore, it is important to identify the electrophysiologic mechanisms that affect QT duration and distribution. We compared the spatial distributions of QT intervals (QTI) with potential distributions on cardiac and body surfaces and with recovery times on the cardiac surface. We hypothesized that the measure of QTI is affected by the presence of the zero potential line in the potential distribution, as well as the sequence of recovery. We also investigated use of the STT area as a possible indicator of recovery times on the cardiac surface. METHODS AND RESULTS: High-resolution spatial distributions of QTI and potentials were determined on the body surface of human subjects and on the surface of a torso-shaped tank containing an isolated canine heart. Additionally, spatial distributions of QTI, recovery times, and STT areas were determined on the surface of exposed canine hearts. Unipolar electrograms were recorded during atrial and ventricular pacing for normal hearts and cases of myocardial infarction. Regions of shortest QTI always coincided with the location of the zero potential line on the cardiac and body surfaces. On the cardiac surface, in regions away from the zero line, similarities were observed between the patterns of QTI and the sequence of recovery. STT areas and recovery times were highly correlated on the cardiac surface. CONCLUSION: QTI is not a robust index of local recovery time on the cardiac surface. QTI distributions were affected by the position of the zero potential line, which is unrelated to local recovery times. However, similarities in the patterns of QTI and recovery times in some regions may help explain the frequently reported predictive value of QT dispersion. Preliminary results indicate STT area may be a better index of recovery time and recovery time dispersion on the epicardium than QTI.
INTRODUCTION: The role of QT dispersion as a predictor of arrhythmia vulnerability has not been consistently confirmed in the literature. Therefore, it is important to identify the electrophysiologic mechanisms that affect QT duration and distribution. We compared the spatial distributions of QT intervals (QTI) with potential distributions on cardiac and body surfaces and with recovery times on the cardiac surface. We hypothesized that the measure of QTI is affected by the presence of the zero potential line in the potential distribution, as well as the sequence of recovery. We also investigated use of the STT area as a possible indicator of recovery times on the cardiac surface. METHODS AND RESULTS: High-resolution spatial distributions of QTI and potentials were determined on the body surface of human subjects and on the surface of a torso-shaped tank containing an isolated canine heart. Additionally, spatial distributions of QTI, recovery times, and STT areas were determined on the surface of exposed canine hearts. Unipolar electrograms were recorded during atrial and ventricular pacing for normal hearts and cases of myocardial infarction. Regions of shortest QTI always coincided with the location of the zero potential line on the cardiac and body surfaces. On the cardiac surface, in regions away from the zero line, similarities were observed between the patterns of QTI and the sequence of recovery. STT areas and recovery times were highly correlated on the cardiac surface. CONCLUSION: QTI is not a robust index of local recovery time on the cardiac surface. QTI distributions were affected by the position of the zero potential line, which is unrelated to local recovery times. However, similarities in the patterns of QTI and recovery times in some regions may help explain the frequently reported predictive value of QT dispersion. Preliminary results indicate STT area may be a better index of recovery time and recovery time dispersion on the epicardium than QTI.
Authors: Jurren M van Opstal; S Cora Verduyn; Stephan K G Winckels; Hendrik M Leerssen; Jet D M Leunissen; Hein J J Wellens; Marc A Vos Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Milos Kesek; Anders Englund; Tomas Jernberg; Bo Lagerqvist; Bertil Lindahl Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 1.468