BACKGROUND: The patients with the long QT syndrome type-1 (LQT-1) have an impaired adaptation of the QT interval to heart rate changes. Yet, the description of the dynamic QT-RR coupling in genotyped LQT-1 has never been thoroughly investigated. METHOD: We propose a method to model the dynamic QT-RR coupling by defining a transfer function characterizing the relationship between a QT interval and its previous RR intervals measured from ambulatory Holter recordings. Three parameters are used to characterize the QT-RR coupling: a fast gain (Gain(F) ), a slow gain (Gain(L) ), and a time constant (τ). We investigated the values of these parameters across genders, and in genotyped LQT-1 patients with normal QTc interval duration (QTc < 470 ms). RESULTS: The QT-RR dynamic profiles are significantly different between LQT-1 patients (97) and controls (154): LQT-1 have longer QTc interval (453 ± 35 vs. 384 ± 26 ms, P < 0.0001), and an increased dependency of the QT interval to previous RR changes revealed by a larger Gain(L) (0.22 ± 0.06 vs. 0.18 ± 0.07, P < 0.0001) and Gain(F) (0.05 ± 0.02 vs. 0.03 ± 0.01, P < 0.0001). Importantly, LQT-1 patients have a faster QT dynamic response to previous RR changes described by τ: 122 ± 44 vs. 172 ± 92 beats (P < 0.0001). This faster QT dynamic response of the QT-RR dynamic coupling remained in LQT-1 patients with QTc in a normal range (<430 ms). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of QT-RR dynamic coupling could be used in patients suspected to carry a concealed form of the LQT-1 syndrome, or to provide insights into the types of arrhythmogenic triggers a patient may be prone to.
BACKGROUND: The patients with the long QT syndrome type-1 (LQT-1) have an impaired adaptation of the QT interval to heart rate changes. Yet, the description of the dynamic QT-RR coupling in genotyped LQT-1 has never been thoroughly investigated. METHOD: We propose a method to model the dynamic QT-RR coupling by defining a transfer function characterizing the relationship between a QT interval and its previous RR intervals measured from ambulatory Holter recordings. Three parameters are used to characterize the QT-RR coupling: a fast gain (Gain(F) ), a slow gain (Gain(L) ), and a time constant (τ). We investigated the values of these parameters across genders, and in genotyped LQT-1patients with normal QTc interval duration (QTc < 470 ms). RESULTS: The QT-RR dynamic profiles are significantly different between LQT-1patients (97) and controls (154): LQT-1 have longer QTc interval (453 ± 35 vs. 384 ± 26 ms, P < 0.0001), and an increased dependency of the QT interval to previous RR changes revealed by a larger Gain(L) (0.22 ± 0.06 vs. 0.18 ± 0.07, P < 0.0001) and Gain(F) (0.05 ± 0.02 vs. 0.03 ± 0.01, P < 0.0001). Importantly, LQT-1patients have a faster QT dynamic response to previous RR changes described by τ: 122 ± 44 vs. 172 ± 92 beats (P < 0.0001). This faster QT dynamic response of the QT-RR dynamic coupling remained in LQT-1patients with QTc in a normal range (<430 ms). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of QT-RR dynamic coupling could be used in patients suspected to carry a concealed form of the LQT-1 syndrome, or to provide insights into the types of arrhythmogenic triggers a patient may be prone to.
Authors: Josef Halámek; Pavel Jurák; T Jared Bunch; Jolana Lipoldová; Miroslav Novák; Vlastimil Vondra; Pavel Leinveber; Martin Plachy; Tomas Kara; Marco Villa; Petr Frána; Miroslav Soucek; Virend K Somers; Samuel J Asirvatham Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: L Zhang; K W Timothy; G M Vincent; M H Lehmann; J Fox; L C Giuli; J Shen; I Splawski; S G Priori; S J Compton; F Yanowitz; J Benhorin; A J Moss; P J Schwartz; J L Robinson; Q Wang; W Zareba; M T Keating; J A Towbin; C Napolitano; A Medina Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-12-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sami Viskin; Pieter G Postema; Zahurul A Bhuiyan; Raphael Rosso; Jonathan M Kalman; Jitendra K Vohra; Milton E Guevara-Valdivia; Manlio F Marquez; Evgeni Kogan; Bernard Belhassen; Michael Glikson; Boris Strasberg; Charles Antzelevitch; Arthur A M Wilde Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: P J Schwartz; S G Priori; C Spazzolini; A J Moss; G M Vincent; C Napolitano; I Denjoy; P Guicheney; G Breithardt; M T Keating; J A Towbin; A H Beggs; P Brink; A A Wilde; L Toivonen; W Zareba; J L Robinson; K W Timothy; V Corfield; D Wattanasirichaigoon; C Corbett; W Haverkamp; E Schulze-Bahr; M H Lehmann; K Schwartz; P Coumel; R Bloise Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alon Barsheshet; Derick R Peterson; Arthur J Moss; Peter J Schwartz; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Scott McNitt; Slava Polonsky; Jonathan Buber; Wojciech Zareba; Jennifer L Robinson; Michael J Ackerman; Jesaia Benhorin; Jeffrey A Towbin; G Michael Vincent; Li Zhang; Ilan Goldenberg Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Hanno L Tan; Abdennasser Bardai; Wataru Shimizu; Arthur J Moss; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Takashi Noda; Arthur A M Wilde Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-11-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ricardo A Quinteiro; Marcelo O Biagetti; Adrian Fernandez; Francisco R Borzone; Agustina Gargano; Horacio J Casabe Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2015-02-01 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Kathryn E Waddell-Smith; Alexandra A Chaptynova; Jian Li; Jackie R Crawford; Halina Hinds; Jonathan R Skinner Journal: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Date: 2022-05-23