4.4 Article

High prevalence of early repolarization in short QT syndrome

期刊

HEART RHYTHM
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 647-652

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.01.012

关键词

Arrhythmia; Electrocardiogram; QT interval; Repolarization; Sudden death

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan [21C-8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is characterized by an abnormally short QT interval and sudden death. Due to the limited number of cases, the characteristics of SQTS are not well understood. It has been reported recently that early repolarization is associated with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation and the QT interval is short in patients with early repolarization. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to study the association between early repolarization and arrhythmic events in SQTS. METHODS The study consisted of three cohorts: SQTS cohort (N = 37), control cohort with short QT interval and no arrhythmic events (N = 44), and control cohort with normal QT interval (N = 185). ECG parameters were compared among the study cohorts. RESULTS Heart rate, PR interval, and QRS duration were similar among the three study cohorts. Early repolarization was more common in the SQTS cohort (65%) than in the short QT control cohort (30%) and the normal QT control cohort (10%). Duration from T-wave peak to T-wave end was longer in the SQTS cohort than in the short QT control cohort, although QT and corrected QT intervals were similar. In the SQTS cohort, there were more males among patients with arrhythmic events than in those with a family history but without arrhythmic events. In multivariate models, early repolarization was associated with arrhythmic events in the SQTS cohort. ECG parameters including QT and QTc intervals were not associated with arrhythmic events in the SQTS cohort. CONCLUSION There is a high prevalence of early repolarization in patients with SQTS. Early repolarization may be useful in identifying risk of cardiac events in SQTS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据