Hugo Gravel1, Daniel Curnier1, Nagib Dahdah2, Vincent Jacquemet3. 1. Department of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada. 2. Division of Pediatric Cardiology and CHU Ste-Justine Research Center, CHU Ste-Justine, Montréal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the human electrocardiogram, there is a lag of adaptation of the QT interval to heart rate changes, usually termed QT/RR hysteresis (QT-hys). Subject-specific quantifiers of QT-hys have been proposed as potential biomarkers, but there is no consensus on the choice of the quantifier. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify original articles reporting quantifiers of repolarization hysteresis from the surface ECG in humans. RESULTS: Sixty articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Reported biomarkers were grouped under four categories. A simple mathematical model of QT/RR loop was used to illustrate differences between the methods. Category I quantifiers use direct measurement of QT time course of adaptation. They are limited to conditions where RR intervals are under strict control. Category IIa and IIb quantifiers compare QT responses during consecutive heart rate acceleration and deceleration. They are relevant when a QT/RR loop is observed, typically during exercise and recovery, but are not robust to protocol variations. Category III quantifiers evaluate the optimum RR memory in dynamic QT/RR relationship modeling. They estimate an intrinsic memory parameter independent from the nature of RR changes, but their reliability remains to be confirmed when multiple memory parameters are estimated. Promising approaches include the differentiation of short-term and long-term memory and adaptive estimation of memory parameters. CONCLUSION: Model-based approaches to QT-hys assessment appear to be the most versatile, as they allow separate quantification of QT/RR dependency and QT-hys, and can be applied to a wide range of experimental settings.
BACKGROUND: In the human electrocardiogram, there is a lag of adaptation of the QT interval to heart rate changes, usually termed QT/RR hysteresis (QT-hys). Subject-specific quantifiers of QT-hys have been proposed as potential biomarkers, but there is no consensus on the choice of the quantifier. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify original articles reporting quantifiers of repolarization hysteresis from the surface ECG in humans. RESULTS: Sixty articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Reported biomarkers were grouped under four categories. A simple mathematical model of QT/RR loop was used to illustrate differences between the methods. Category I quantifiers use direct measurement of QT time course of adaptation. They are limited to conditions where RR intervals are under strict control. Category IIa and IIb quantifiers compare QT responses during consecutive heart rate acceleration and deceleration. They are relevant when a QT/RR loop is observed, typically during exercise and recovery, but are not robust to protocol variations. Category III quantifiers evaluate the optimum RR memory in dynamic QT/RR relationship modeling. They estimate an intrinsic memory parameter independent from the nature of RR changes, but their reliability remains to be confirmed when multiple memory parameters are estimated. Promising approaches include the differentiation of short-term and long-term memory and adaptive estimation of memory parameters. CONCLUSION: Model-based approaches to QT-hys assessment appear to be the most versatile, as they allow separate quantification of QT/RR dependency and QT-hys, and can be applied to a wide range of experimental settings.
Authors: M Malik; E M van Gelderen; J H Lee; D L Kowalski; M Yen; R Goldwater; S K Mujais; M P Schaddelee; P de Koning; A Kaibara; S S Moy; J J Keirns Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Marek Malik; Katerina Hnatkova; Donna Kowalski; James J Keirns; E Marcel van Gelderen Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Ishvinder S Chattha; Raymond W Sy; Raymond Yee; Lorne J Gula; Allan C Skanes; George J Klein; Matthew T Bennett; Andrew D Krahn Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Dong-sheng Gao; Wei-yi Fang; Christine Chiu-Man; Joel Kirsh; Gil Gross; Robert M Hamilton Journal: Chin Med J (Engl) Date: 2007-02-05 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Josef Halamek; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Pavel Jurak; Vlastimil Vondra; Wojciech Zareba; Ivo Viscor; Pavel Leinveber Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Mohammad Hasan Imam; Chandan K Karmakar; Herbert F Jelinek; Marimuthu Palaniswami; Ahsan H Khandoker Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Irena Andršová; Katerina Hnatkova; Martina Šišáková; Ondřej Toman; Peter Smetana; Katharina M Huster; Petra Barthel; Tomáš Novotný; Georg Schmidt; Marek Malik Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Ondřej Toman; Katerina Hnatkova; Martina Šišáková; Peter Smetana; Katharina M Huster; Petra Barthel; Tomáš Novotný; Irena Andršová; Georg Schmidt; Marek Malik Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Irena Andršová; Katerina Hnatkova; Martina Šišáková; Ondřej Toman; Peter Smetana; Katharina M Huster; Petra Barthel; Tomáš Novotný; Georg Schmidt; Marek Malik Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.996