4.4 Article

The QT Interval in Patients With the Turner Syndrome

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 140, Issue -, Pages 118-121

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.09.061

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with Turner syndrome often have longer QT intervals than their peers, but ventricular arrhythmias are rare in this group despite the frequent use of QT-prolonging medications.
Patients with the Turner syndrome (TS) often have longer QT intervals compared with age-matched peers although the significance of this remains unknown. We sought to determine the degree, frequency and impact of QTc prolongation in patients with TS. A chart review of all patients with an electrocardiogram (ECG) and genetically proven TS was performed. Medications at the time of the ECG were reviewed and QTc calculated. Medications were classified according to QTc risk using www.crediblemeds.com. ECG parameters were compared with an age, gender, and cardiac lesion-matched control group. Over the 10-year period of review, 112 TS patients with a mean age of 34 +/- 25 years underwent 226 ECGs. At least 1 QTc prolonging medication was prescribed in 81 (74%) patients. Longer QTc interval correlated with absence of y chromosomal material (p = 0.01), older age (p <0.0001), increased number of QTc prolonging and nonprolonging medications (p <0.0001 each). During the 7.0 +/- 5.1 years of follow-up, no patient had ventricular arrhythmia or unexplained sudden death. QTc was significantly shorter in matched controls using either Bazett or Hodges formula (424 +/- 16 ms vs 448 +/- 28 ms, p <0.0001; and 414.8 +/- 16 ms vs 424.2 +/- 20 ms; p = 0.0002, respectively). However, there was no difference in the frequency of QTc prolongation >460 msec (2.8% vs 2.6%, p = 0.9). In conclusion, despite frequent use of QT-prolonging medications, ventricular arrhythmias are rare in TS. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available