BACKGROUND: Identifying hospitalized patients at risk for QT interval prolongation could lead to interventions to reduce the risk of torsades de pointes. Our objective was to develop and validate a risk score for QT prolongation in hospitalized patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, in a single tertiary care institution, consecutive patients (n=900) admitted to cardiac care units comprised the risk score development group. The score was then applied to 300 additional patients in a validation group. Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation (defined as QTc>500 ms or an increase of >60 ms from baseline) occurred in 274 (30.4%) and 90 (30.0%) patients in the development group and validation group, respectively. Independent predictors of QTc prolongation included the following: female (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.0), diagnosis of myocardial infarction (2.4 [1.6-3.9]), septic shock (2.7 [1.5-4.8]), left ventricular dysfunction (2.7 [1.6-5.0]), administration of a QT-prolonging drug (2.8 [2.0-4.0]), ≥2 QT-prolonging drugs (2.6 [1.9-5.6]), or loop diuretic (1.4 [1.0-2.0]), age >68 years (1.3 [1.0-1.9]), serum K⁺ <3.5 mEq/L (2.1 [1.5-2.9]), and admitting QTc >450 ms (2.3; confidence interval [1.6-3.2]). Risk scores were developed by assigning points based on log odds ratios. Low-, moderate-, and high-risk ranges of 0 to 6, 7 to 10, and 11 to 21 points, respectively, best predicted QTc prolongation (C statistic=0.823). A high-risk score ≥11 was associated with sensitivity=0.74, specificity=0.77, positive predictive value=0.79, and negative predictive value=0.76. In the validation group, the incidences of QTc prolongation were 15% (low risk); 37% (moderate risk); and 73% (high risk). CONCLUSIONS: A risk score using easily obtainable clinical variables predicts patients at highest risk for QTc interval prolongation and may be useful in guiding monitoring and treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Identifying hospitalized patients at risk for QT interval prolongation could lead to interventions to reduce the risk of torsades de pointes. Our objective was to develop and validate a risk score for QT prolongation in hospitalized patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, in a single tertiary care institution, consecutive patients (n=900) admitted to cardiac care units comprised the risk score development group. The score was then applied to 300 additional patients in a validation group. Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation (defined as QTc>500 ms or an increase of >60 ms from baseline) occurred in 274 (30.4%) and 90 (30.0%) patients in the development group and validation group, respectively. Independent predictors of QTc prolongation included the following: female (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.0), diagnosis of myocardial infarction (2.4 [1.6-3.9]), septic shock (2.7 [1.5-4.8]), left ventricular dysfunction (2.7 [1.6-5.0]), administration of a QT-prolonging drug (2.8 [2.0-4.0]), ≥2 QT-prolonging drugs (2.6 [1.9-5.6]), or loop diuretic (1.4 [1.0-2.0]), age >68 years (1.3 [1.0-1.9]), serum K⁺ <3.5 mEq/L (2.1 [1.5-2.9]), and admitting QTc >450 ms (2.3; confidence interval [1.6-3.2]). Risk scores were developed by assigning points based on log odds ratios. Low-, moderate-, and high-risk ranges of 0 to 6, 7 to 10, and 11 to 21 points, respectively, best predicted QTc prolongation (C statistic=0.823). A high-risk score ≥11 was associated with sensitivity=0.74, specificity=0.77, positive predictive value=0.79, and negative predictive value=0.76. In the validation group, the incidences of QTc prolongation were 15% (low risk); 37% (moderate risk); and 73% (high risk). CONCLUSIONS: A risk score using easily obtainable clinical variables predicts patients at highest risk for QTc interval prolongation and may be useful in guiding monitoring and treatment decisions.
Entities:
Keywords:
QT interval; electrocardiography; predictors; risk factors; torsades de pointes
Authors: David Pickham; Eric Helfenbein; Julie A Shinn; Garrett Chan; Marjorie Funk; Ann Weinacker; Jia-Ni Liu; Barbara J Drew Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sami Viskin; Uri Rosovski; Andrew J Sands; Edmond Chen; Peter M Kistler; Jonathan M Kalman; Laura Rodriguez Chavez; Pedro Iturralde Torres; Fernando E S Cruz F; Osmar A Centurión; Akira Fujiki; Philippe Maury; Xiaomin Chen; Andrew D Krahn; Franz Roithinger; Li Zhang; G Michael Vincent; David Zeltser Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Marie L De Bruin; Pim N J Langendijk; Richard P Koopmans; Arthur A M Wilde; Hubert G M Leufkens; Arno W Hoes Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2006-07-21 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: F Chézalviel-Guilbert; V Deplanne; J M Davy; J M Poirier; Y Z Xia; G Cheymol; J Weissenburger Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 1998-05
Authors: David Zeltser; Dan Justo; Amir Halkin; Vitaly Prokhorov; Karin Heller; Sami Viskin Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: W Zareba; A J Moss; P J Schwartz; G M Vincent; J L Robinson; S G Priori; J Benhorin; E H Locati; J A Towbin; M T Keating; M H Lehmann; W J Hall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James E Tisdale; Heather A Jaynes; Brian R Overholser; Kevin M Sowinski; Mark D Fisch; Jo E Rodgers; Ahmed Aldemerdash; Chia-Chi Hsu; Nan Wang; Elena Tomaselli Muensterman; Vijay U Rao; Richard J Kovacs Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Anita N Bindraban; José Rolvink; Florine A Berger; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Aaf F M Kuijper; Ruud T M van der Hoeven; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Matthijs L Becker Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2018-07-26
Authors: James E Tisdale; Heather A Jaynes; Joanna R Kingery; Brian R Overholser; Noha A Mourad; Tate N Trujillo; Richard J Kovacs Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-05-06
Authors: Elena Tomaselli Muensterman; Heather A Jaynes; Kevin M Sowinski; Brian R Overholser; Changyu Shen; Richard J Kovacs; James E Tisdale Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 29.690