AimsSudden cardiac death (SCD) is challenging to predict. Electrocardiogram (ECG)-derived heart rate-corrected QT-interval (QTc) is used for SCD-risk assessment. QTc is preferably determined... Show moreAimsSudden cardiac death (SCD) is challenging to predict. Electrocardiogram (ECG)-derived heart rate-corrected QT-interval (QTc) is used for SCD-risk assessment. QTc is preferably determined manually, but vendor-provided automatic results from ECG recorders are convenient. Agreement between manual and automatic assessments is unclear for populations with aberrant QTc. We aimed to systematically assess pairwise agreement of automatic and manual QT-intervals and QTc.Methods and resultsA multi-centre cohort enriching aberrant QTc comprised ECGs of healthy controls and long-QT syndrome (LQTS) patients. Manual QT-intervals and QTc were determined by the tangent and threshold methods and compared to automatically generated, vendor-provided values. We assessed agreement globally by intra-class correlation coefficients and pairwise by Bland–Altman analyses and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Further, manual results were compared to a novel automatic QT-interval algorithm. ECGs of 1263 participants (720 LQTS patients; 543 controls) were available [median age 34 (inter-quartile range 35) years, 55% women]. Comparing cohort means, automatic and manual QT-intervals and QTc were similar. However, pairwise Bland–Altman-based agreement was highly discrepant. For QT-interval, LoAs spanned 95 (tangent) and 92 ms (threshold), respectively. For QTc, the spread was 108 and 105 ms, respectively. LQTS patients exhibited more pronounced differences. For automatic QTc results from 440–540 ms (tangent) and 430–530 ms (threshold), misassessment risk was highest. Novel automatic QT-interval algorithms may narrow this range.ConclusionPairwise vendor-provided automatic and manual QT-interval and QTc results can be highly discrepant. Novel automatic algorithms may improve agreement. Within the above ranges, automatic QT-interval and QTc results require manual confirmation, particularly if T-wave morphology is challenging. Show less
BackgroundAn elegant bedside provocation test has been shown to aid the diagnosis of long‐QT syndrome (LQTS) in a retrospective cohort by evaluation of QT intervals and T‐wave morphology changes... Show moreBackgroundAn elegant bedside provocation test has been shown to aid the diagnosis of long‐QT syndrome (LQTS) in a retrospective cohort by evaluation of QT intervals and T‐wave morphology changes resulting from the brief tachycardia provoked by standing. We aimed to prospectively determine the potential diagnostic value of the standing test for LQTS.Methods and ResultsIn adults suspected for LQTS who had a standing test, the QT interval was assessed manually and automated. In addition, T‐wave morphology changes were determined. A total of 167 controls and 131 genetically confirmed patients with LQTS were included. A prolonged heart rate–corrected QT interval (QTc) (men ≥430 ms, women ≥450 ms) at baseline before standing yielded a sensitivity of 61% (95% CI, 47–74) in men and 54% (95% CI, 42–66) in women, with a specificity of 90% (95% CI, 80–96) and 89% (95% CI, 81–95), respectively. In both men and women, QTc≥460 ms after standing increased sensitivity (89% [95% CI, 83–94]) but decreased specificity (49% [95% CI, 41–57]). Sensitivity further increased (P<0.01) when a prolonged baseline QTc was accompanied by a QTc≥460 ms after standing in both men (93% [95% CI, 84–98]) and women (90% [95% CI, 81–96]). However, the area under the curve did not improve. T‐wave abnormalities after standing did not further increase the sensitivity or the area under the curve significantly.ConclusionsDespite earlier retrospective studies, a baseline ECG and the standing test in a prospective evaluation displayed a different diagnostic profile for congenital LQTS but no unequivocal synergism or advantage. This suggests that there is markedly reduced penetrance and incomplete expression in genetically confirmed LQTS with retention of repolarization reserve in response to the brief tachycardia provoked by standing. Show less
BACKGROUND Adult long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients have inadequate corrected QT interval (QTc) shortening and an abnormal T-wave response to the sudden heart rate acceleration provoked by standing.... Show moreBACKGROUND Adult long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients have inadequate corrected QT interval (QTc) shortening and an abnormal T-wave response to the sudden heart rate acceleration provoked by standing. In adults, this knowledge can be used to aid an LQTS diagnosis and, possibly, for risk stratification. However, data on the diagnostic value of the standing test in children are currently limited. OBJECTIVE To determine the potential value of the standing test to aid LQTS diagnostics in children. METHODS In a prospective cohort including children (<= 18 years) who had a standing test, comprehensive analyses were performed including manual and automated QT interval assessments and determination of T-wave morphology changes. RESULTS We included 47 LQTS children and 86 control children. At baseline, the QTc that identified LQTS children with a 90% sensitivity was 435 ms, which yielded a 65% specificity. A QTc >= 490 ms after standing only slightly increased sensitivity (91%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 80%-98%) and slightly decreased specificity (58%, 95% CI: 47%-70%). Sensitivity increased slightly more when T-wave abnormalities were present (94%, 95% CI: 82%-99%; specificity 53%, 95% CI: 42%-65%). When a baseline QTc >= 440 ms was accompanied by a QTc >= 490 ms and T-wave abnormalities after standing, sensitivity further increased (96%, 95% CI: 85%-99%) at the expense of a further specificity decrease (41%, 95% CI: 30%-52%). Beat-to-beat analysis showed that 30 seconds after standing, LQTS children had a greater increase in heart rate compared to controls, which was more evidently present in LQTS boys and LQTS type 1 children. CONCLUSION In children, the standing test has limited additive diagnostic value for LQTS over a baseline electrocardiogram, while T-wave abnormalities after standing also have limited additional value. The standing test for LQTS should only be used with caution in children. Show less
