Literature DB >> 17392645

Gender-specific comparison of five QT correction formulae in middle-aged participants in an atherosclerosis prevention program.

Bernhard Strohmer1, Christiana Schernthanere, Bernhard Paulweber, Maximilian Pichler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Analysis of QT duration limited to a single heart rate correction formula might be problematic in cross-sectional studies. The aim of this study was to investigate five frequently used equations with respect to over- and under-correction of QT intervals in a middle-aged population without manifest atherosclerotic disease. MATERIAL/
METHODS: A total of 1199 individuals (851 males, 348 females, aged 39 to 66 years) of the SAPHIR study (Salzburg Atherosclerosis Prevention Program in Subjects at High Individual Risk) were investigated. Heart rate, RR, and QT intervals were measured automatically from resting ECGs with the 12SL ECG Analysis Program (GE Medical Systems). Five methods (Bazett, Fridericia, Framingham, Hodges, and Rautaharju) were used to correct the QT interval for heart rate.
RESULTS: Females had shorter RR intervals than males (963+/-141 vs. 1022+/-158 ms, p<0.0005), with longer QT (410+/-28 vs. 404+/-28 ms, p=0.003) and QTc intervals using all five formulae (p<0.0005). No significant differences were observed between the gender groups for the QTc/RR slopes regardless of the formula. The Bazett formula performed the worst and the Fridericia the best in terms of rate adjustment success (slope B=-0.001). The optimal alpha of the best-fit equation (QTc=QT/RRalpha) was calculated as 0.326 for males and 0.328 for females.
CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that automatic QT measurements can be used reliably in cardiovascular prevention programs, encouraging further investigation of their clinical value in risk stratification. From an epidemiological perspective, however, the selected QT correction formula applied to a specific population has to be evaluated for appropriateness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17392645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Monit        ISSN: 1234-1010


  6 in total

1.  QT correction using Bazett's formula remains preferable in long QT syndrome type 1 and 2.

Authors:  Pia Dahlberg; Ulla-Britt Diamant; Thomas Gilljam; Annika Rydberg; Lennart Bergfeldt
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 1.468

2.  Effect of domperidone, ondansetron, olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimen on QTC interval in patients with malignancy: a prospective, observational, single-group, assessor-blinded study.

Authors:  Ashwin Kamath; K Maneesh Rai; R Shreyas; P U Prakash Saxena; Sourjya Banerjee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Pulmonary vein isolation in a real-world population does not influence QTc interval.

Authors:  Ben J M Hermans; Matthias D Zink; Frank van Rosmalen; Harry J G M Crijns; Kevin Vernooy; Pieter Postema; Laurent Pison; Ulrich Schotten; Tammo Delhaas
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 5.214

4.  The best QT correction formula in a non-hospitalized population: the Fasa PERSIAN cohort study.

Authors:  Mohammad Hosein Yazdanpanah; Mohammad Mehdi Naghizadeh; Sepideh Sayyadipoor; Mojtaba Farjam
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 2.298

5.  Genotype-Specific ECG-Based Risk Stratification Approaches in Patients With Long-QT Syndrome.

Authors:  Marina Rieder; Paul Kreifels; Judith Stuplich; David Ziupa; Helge Servatius; Luisa Nicolai; Alessandro Castiglione; Christiane Zweier; Babken Asatryan; Katja E Odening
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-14

6.  Which QT Correction Formulae to Use for QT Monitoring?

Authors:  Bert Vandenberk; Eline Vandael; Tomas Robyns; Joris Vandenberghe; Christophe Garweg; Veerle Foulon; Joris Ector; Rik Willems
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 5.501

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.