Silvia Castelletti1, Federica Dagradi1, Karine Goulene2, Aurora I Danza3, Enrico Baldi3, Marco Stramba-Badiale2, Peter J Schwartz4. 1. Center for Cardiac Arrhythmias of Genetic Origin, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Geriatrics and Cardiovascular Medicine, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Molecular Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. 4. Center for Cardiac Arrhythmias of Genetic Origin, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: peter.schwartz@unipv.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A correct measurement of the QT interval in the out-of-hospital setting is important whenever the long QT syndrome (LQTS) is suspected or a therapy might lead to drug-induced LQTS (diLQTS) because QT interval monitoring in the initial days of therapy could alert to dangerous QT prolongation. We explored whether automated QTc measurements (BGM) by BodyGuardian™ (BG), a wearable remote monitoring system, are sufficiently reliable compared to our own manual measurements (MM) performed on the same beats during 12‑lead Holter recordings in LQTS patients (pts) and in healthy controls. METHODS: We performed 351 measurements in 20 LQTS pts and 16 controls. MM and BGM were compared by a Bland-Altman plot (BAp). High values of BAp indicate large differences between measurements. RESULTS: In all 36 subjects QTc was 446 ± 41 and 445 ± 47 ms in MM and BGM, respectively. The mean ± SE BAp was -1.4 ± 1.8 ms for QTc in all subjects, 8.3 ± 2.3 and -7.2 ± 2.5 ms respectively in controls and LQTS. The disagreement between BGM and MM <15 ms in all, in controls, and in LQTS was respectively 57%, 63% and 54%. Among controls, there were only 3/132 false positive measurements (BGM QTc >470 ms when MM QTc <440 ms) in 3 different subjects. Among LQTS, there were 10/219 false negative measurements (BGM QTc <440 ms when MM QTc >470 ms) in 6 pts, but only two had multiple false negative values. CONCLUSIONS: This wearable monitoring system reliably identifies a prolonged QT interval and probably also subjects at risk for diLQTS.
BACKGROUND: A correct measurement of the QT interval in the out-of-hospital setting is important whenever the long QT syndrome (LQTS) is suspected or a therapy might lead to drug-induced LQTS (diLQTS) because QT interval monitoring in the initial days of therapy could alert to dangerous QT prolongation. We explored whether automated QTc measurements (BGM) by BodyGuardian™ (BG), a wearable remote monitoring system, are sufficiently reliable compared to our own manual measurements (MM) performed on the same beats during 12‑lead Holter recordings in LQTS patients (pts) and in healthy controls. METHODS: We performed 351 measurements in 20 LQTS pts and 16 controls. MM and BGM were compared by a Bland-Altman plot (BAp). High values of BAp indicate large differences between measurements. RESULTS: In all 36 subjects QTc was 446 ± 41 and 445 ± 47 ms in MM and BGM, respectively. The mean ± SE BAp was -1.4 ± 1.8 ms for QTc in all subjects, 8.3 ± 2.3 and -7.2 ± 2.5 ms respectively in controls and LQTS. The disagreement between BGM and MM <15 ms in all, in controls, and in LQTS was respectively 57%, 63% and 54%. Among controls, there were only 3/132 false positive measurements (BGM QTc >470 ms when MM QTc <440 ms) in 3 different subjects. Among LQTS, there were 10/219 false negative measurements (BGM QTc <440 ms when MM QTc >470 ms) in 6 pts, but only two had multiple false negative values. CONCLUSIONS: This wearable monitoring system reliably identifies a prolonged QT interval and probably also subjects at risk for diLQTS.
Authors: Diego Mannhart; Elisa Hennings; Mirko Lischer; Claudius Vernier; Jeanne Du Fay de Lavallaz; Sven Knecht; Beat Schaer; Stefan Osswald; Michael Kühne; Christian Sticherling; Patrick Badertscher Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Daniel Lenihan; Joseph Carver; Charles Porter; Jennifer E Liu; Susan Dent; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; Joshua D Mitchell; Anju Nohria; Michael G Fradley; Iskra Pusic; Keith Stockerl-Goldstein; Anne Blaes; Alexander R Lyon; Sarju Ganatra; Teresa López-Fernández; Rupal O'Quinn; Giorgio Minotti; Sebastian Szmit; Daniela Cardinale; Jose Alvarez-Cardona; Giuseppe Curigliano; Tomas G Neilan; Joerg Herrmann Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Marc Strik; Théo Caillol; F Daniel Ramirez; Saer Abu-Alrub; Hugo Marchand; Nicolas Welte; Philippe Ritter; Michel Haïssaguerre; Sylvain Ploux; Pierre Bordachar Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Niraj Varma; Nassir F Marrouche; Luis Aguinaga; Christine M Albert; Elena Arbelo; Jong-Il Choi; Mina K Chung; Giulio Conte; Lilas Dagher; Laurence M Epstein; Hamid Ghanbari; Janet K Han; Hein Heidbuchel; He Huang; Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy; Tachapong Ngarmukos; Andrea M Russo; Eduardo B Saad; Luis C Saenz Morales; Kristin E Sandau; Arun Raghav M Sridhar; Eric C Stecker; Paul D Varosy Journal: Europace Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Niraj Varma; Nassir F Marrouche; Luis Aguinaga; Christine M Albert; Elena Arbelo; Jong-Il Choi; Mina K Chung; Giulio Conte; Lilas Dagher; Laurence M Epstein; Hamid Ghanbari; Janet K Han; Hein Heidbuchel; He Huang; Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy; Tachapong Ngarmukos; Andrea M Russo; Eduardo B Saad; Luis C Saenz Morales; Kristin E Sandau; Arun Raghav M Sridhar; Eric C Stecker; Paul D Varosy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Niraj Varma; Nassir F Marrouche; Luis Aguinaga; Christine M Albert; Elena Arbelo; Jong-Il Choi; Mina K Chung; Giulio Conte; Lilas Dagher; Laurence M Epstein; Hamid Ghanbari; Janet K Han; Hein Heidbuchel; He Huang; Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy; Tachapong Ngarmukos; Andrea M Russo; Eduardo B Saad; Luis C Saenz Morales; Kristin E Sandau; Arun Raghav M Sridhar; Eric C Stecker; Paul D Varosy Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-21