OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that epinephrine test may have diagnostic value for genotyping LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 forms of congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS). BACKGROUND: A differential response of dynamic QT interval to epinephrine infusion between LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 syndromes has been reported, indicating the potential diagnostic value of the epinephrine test for genotyping the three forms. METHODS: The responses of 12-lead ECG parameters to epinephrine were retrospectively examined in 15 LQT1, 10 LQT2, 8 LQT3, and 10 healthy volunteers to select the best ECG criteria for separating the four groups. The epinephrine test then was prospectively conducted in 42 probands clinically affected with LQTS, their 67 family members, and 10 new volunteers. The best criteria were applied in a blinded fashion to prospectively separate a different group of 31 LQT1, 23 LQT2, 6 LQT3, and 30 Control patients (10 genotype-negative LQT1, 10 genotype-negative LQT2 family members, and 10 volunteers). RESULTS: The sensitivity (penetrance) by ECG diagnostic criteria was lower in LQT1 (68%) than in LQT2 (83%) or LQT3 (83%) before epinephrine and was improved with steady-state epinephrine in LQT1 (87%) and LQT2 (91%) but not in LQT3 (83%), without the expense of specificity (100%). The sensitivity and specificity to differentiate LQT1 from LQT2 were 97% and 96%, those from LQT3 were 97% and 100%, and those from Control were 97% and 100%, respectively, when Delta mean corrected Q-Tend >/=35 ms at steady state was used. The sensitivity and specificity to differentiate LQT2 from LQT3 or Control were 100% and 100%, respectively, when Delta mean corrected Q-Tend >/=80 ms at peak was used. CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine infusion is a powerful test to predict the genotype of LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 syndromes as well as to improve the clinical diagnosis of genotype-positive patients, especially those with LQT1 syndrome.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that epinephrine test may have diagnostic value for genotyping LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 forms of congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS). BACKGROUND: A differential response of dynamic QT interval to epinephrine infusion between LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 syndromes has been reported, indicating the potential diagnostic value of the epinephrine test for genotyping the three forms. METHODS: The responses of 12-lead ECG parameters to epinephrine were retrospectively examined in 15 LQT1, 10 LQT2, 8 LQT3, and 10 healthy volunteers to select the best ECG criteria for separating the four groups. The epinephrine test then was prospectively conducted in 42 probands clinically affected with LQTS, their 67 family members, and 10 new volunteers. The best criteria were applied in a blinded fashion to prospectively separate a different group of 31 LQT1, 23 LQT2, 6 LQT3, and 30 Control patients (10 genotype-negative LQT1, 10 genotype-negative LQT2 family members, and 10 volunteers). RESULTS: The sensitivity (penetrance) by ECG diagnostic criteria was lower in LQT1 (68%) than in LQT2 (83%) or LQT3 (83%) before epinephrine and was improved with steady-state epinephrine in LQT1 (87%) and LQT2 (91%) but not in LQT3 (83%), without the expense of specificity (100%). The sensitivity and specificity to differentiate LQT1 from LQT2 were 97% and 96%, those from LQT3 were 97% and 100%, and those from Control were 97% and 100%, respectively, when Delta mean corrected Q-Tend >/=35 ms at steady state was used. The sensitivity and specificity to differentiate LQT2 from LQT3 or Control were 100% and 100%, respectively, when Delta mean corrected Q-Tend >/=80 ms at peak was used. CONCLUSIONS:Epinephrine infusion is a powerful test to predict the genotype of LQT1, LQT2, and LQT3 syndromes as well as to improve the clinical diagnosis of genotype-positive patients, especially those with LQT1 syndrome.
Authors: Arnon Adler; Christian van der Werf; Pieter G Postema; Raphael Rosso; Zahir A Bhuiyan; Jonathan M Kalman; Jitendra K Vohra; Milton E Guevara-Valdivia; Manlio F Marquez; Amir Halkin; Jesaia Benhorin; Charles Antzelevitch; Arthur A M Wilde; Sami Viskin Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Peter F Aziz; Tammy S Wieand; Jamie Ganley; Jacqueline Henderson; Akash R Patel; V Ramesh Iyer; R Lee Vogel; Michael McBride; Victoria L Vetter; Maully J Shah Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-09-28
Authors: Anna-Mari Hekkala; Heikki Swan; Matti Viitasalo; Heikki Väänänen; Lauri Toivonen Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Paola A Lanfranchi; Michael J Ackerman; Tomas Kara; Abu S M Shamsuzzaman; Robert Wolk; Pavel Jurak; Raouf Amin; Virend K Somers Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Sami Viskin; Raphael Rosso; Ori Rogowski; Bernard Belhassen; Aviva Levitas; Abraham Wagshal; Amos Katz; Dana Fourey; David Zeltser; Antonio Oliva; Guido D Pollevick; Charles Antzelevitch; Uri Rozovski Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-08-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wataru Shimizu; Arthur A M Wilde; Jeffrey A Towbin; Wojciech Zareba; Jennifer L Robinson; Ming Qi; G Michael Vincent; Michael J Ackerman; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Nynke Hofman; Rahul Seth; Shiro Kamakura; Yoshihiro Miyamoto; Ilan Goldenberg; Mark L Andrews; Scott McNitt Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 29.690