Nikhil Ahluwalia1, Hariharan Raju2. 1. St George's, University of London, London, UK. 2. MQ Health Cardiology, Macquarie University, 2 Technology Place, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. hari.raju@mqhealth.org.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pre-participation athlete screening has led to the referral of asymptomatic athletes with a prolonged QT interval warranting their evaluation for long QT syndrome (LQTS). Establishing a diagnosis of LQTS can be difficult, particularly in asymptomatic athletes presenting with a prolonged QTc < 500 ms. This review examines the evaluatory pathway to ascertain the common pitfalls leading to mis- or overdiagnosis. We discuss the advanced ECG-based tools and consider their application in the diagnostic process. RECENT FINDINGS: Critical analysis of the ECG, symptom, and pedigree analysis has established value but relies on experienced interpretation. Protocolisation of the former has effectively reduced error. Exercise recovery ECG testing has demonstrated diagnostic value and provocation testing, reliant on QT hysteresis in LQTS, have shown reasonable sensitivity. Although it is becoming more established in experienced centres, its diagnostic value relies on effective risk stratification and subject selection. LQTS is a rare condition and the precision of any available test is greatly diluted if pre-test probability is low. Clinical and familial evaluation and exercise ECG testing are the foundation of the evaluatory process following referral. Adjunctive tests may have high sensitivity for LQTS but rely on high pre-test probability. Several pitfalls have been identified that can lead to misdiagnosis and thus informed evaluation at an experienced specialist centre is appropriate.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pre-participation athlete screening has led to the referral of asymptomatic athletes with a prolonged QT interval warranting their evaluation for long QT syndrome (LQTS). Establishing a diagnosis of LQTS can be difficult, particularly in asymptomatic athletes presenting with a prolonged QTc < 500 ms. This review examines the evaluatory pathway to ascertain the common pitfalls leading to mis- or overdiagnosis. We discuss the advanced ECG-based tools and consider their application in the diagnostic process. RECENT FINDINGS: Critical analysis of the ECG, symptom, and pedigree analysis has established value but relies on experienced interpretation. Protocolisation of the former has effectively reduced error. Exercise recovery ECG testing has demonstrated diagnostic value and provocation testing, reliant on QT hysteresis in LQTS, have shown reasonable sensitivity. Although it is becoming more established in experienced centres, its diagnostic value relies on effective risk stratification and subject selection. LQTS is a rare condition and the precision of any available test is greatly diluted if pre-test probability is low. Clinical and familial evaluation and exercise ECG testing are the foundation of the evaluatory process following referral. Adjunctive tests may have high sensitivity for LQTS but rely on high pre-test probability. Several pitfalls have been identified that can lead to misdiagnosis and thus informed evaluation at an experienced specialist centre is appropriate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Athlete; Long QT syndrome; QT interval; Sports cardiology; Sudden cardiac death
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: Barry J Maron; Paul D Thompson; Michael J Ackerman; Gary Balady; Stuart Berger; David Cohen; Robert Dimeff; Pamela S Douglas; David W Glover; Adolph M Hutter; Michael D Krauss; Martin S Maron; Matthew J Mitten; William O Roberts; James C Puffer Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-03-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Pentti M Rautaharju; Borys Surawicz; Leonard S Gettes; James J Bailey; Rory Childers; Barbara J Deal; Anton Gorgels; E William Hancock; Mark Josephson; Paul Kligfield; Jan A Kors; Peter Macfarlane; Jay W Mason; David M Mirvis; Peter Okin; Olle Pahlm; Gerard van Herpen; Galen S Wagner; Hein Wellens Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Alicia D'Souza; Charles M Pearman; Yanwen Wang; Shu Nakao; Sunil Jit R J Logantha; Charlotte Cox; Hayley Bennett; Yu Zhang; Anne Berit Johnsen; Nora Linscheid; Pi Camilla Poulsen; Jonathan Elliott; Jessica Coulson; Jamie McPhee; Abigail Robertson; Paula A da Costa Martins; Ashraf Kitmitto; Ulrik Wisløff; Elizabeth J Cartwright; Oliver Monfredi; Alicia Lundby; Halina Dobrzynski; Delvac Oceandy; Gwilym M Morris; Mark R Boyett Journal: Circ Res Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Estefanía Martínez-Barrios; Sergi Cesar; José Cruzalegui; Clara Hernandez; Elena Arbelo; Victoria Fiol; Josep Brugada; Ramon Brugada; Oscar Campuzano; Georgia Sarquella-Brugada Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-01-05