European journal of clinical investigation · 2023
Atrial fibrillation and QT corrected. What is the best formula to use?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Luzza Francesco, De Sarro Rosalba, Licordari Roberto, Crea Pasquale, Pugliatti Pietro, Certo Giuseppe, Pistelli Lorenzo, Campanella Francesca, Lo Nigro Maria Claudia, Casale Matteo, Correale Michele, Dattilo Giuseppe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: QT interval varies with the heart rate (HR), so a correction in QT calculation is needed (QTc). Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with elevated HR and beat-to-beat variation.
AIM: To find best correlation between QTc in atrial fibrillation (AF) versus restored sinus rhytm (SR) after electrical cardioversion (ECV) (primary end point) and to determine which correction formula and method are the best to determine QTc in AF (secondary end point).
METHODS: During a 3-month period, we considered patients who underwent 12-lead ECG recording and received an AF diagnosis with indication for ECV. Exclusion criteria were as follows: QRS duration >120 ms, therapy with QT-prolonging drugs, a rate control strategy and a nonelectrical cardioversion. The QT interval was corrected using Bazzett's, Framingham, Fridericia and Hodges formulas during the last ECG during AF and the first one immediately after ECV. QTc mean was calculated as mQTc (average of 10 QTc calculated beat per beat) and as QTcM (QTc calculated from the average of 10 raw QT and RR for each beat).
RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Bazett's formula showed a significant change in mean QTc value between the two rhythms (421.5 ± 33.9 vs. 446.1 ± 31.9; p < 0.001 for mQTc and 420.9 ± 34.1 vs. 441.8 ± 30.9; p = 0.003 for QTcM). On the contrary, in patients with SR, QTc assessed by the Framingham, Fridericia, and Hodges formulas was similar to that in AF. Furthermore, good correlations between mQTc and QTcM are present for each formula, even in AF or SR.
CONCLUSIONS: During AF, Bazzett's formula, seems to be the most imprecise in QTc estimation.
AIM: To find best correlation between QTc in atrial fibrillation (AF) versus restored sinus rhytm (SR) after electrical cardioversion (ECV) (primary end point) and to determine which correction formula and method are the best to determine QTc in AF (secondary end point).
METHODS: During a 3-month period, we considered patients who underwent 12-lead ECG recording and received an AF diagnosis with indication for ECV. Exclusion criteria were as follows: QRS duration >120 ms, therapy with QT-prolonging drugs, a rate control strategy and a nonelectrical cardioversion. The QT interval was corrected using Bazzett's, Framingham, Fridericia and Hodges formulas during the last ECG during AF and the first one immediately after ECV. QTc mean was calculated as mQTc (average of 10 QTc calculated beat per beat) and as QTcM (QTc calculated from the average of 10 raw QT and RR for each beat).
RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Bazett's formula showed a significant change in mean QTc value between the two rhythms (421.5 ± 33.9 vs. 446.1 ± 31.9; p < 0.001 for mQTc and 420.9 ± 34.1 vs. 441.8 ± 30.9; p = 0.003 for QTcM). On the contrary, in patients with SR, QTc assessed by the Framingham, Fridericia, and Hodges formulas was similar to that in AF. Furthermore, good correlations between mQTc and QTcM are present for each formula, even in AF or SR.
CONCLUSIONS: During AF, Bazzett's formula, seems to be the most imprecise in QTc estimation.