4.6 Article

The prevalence and significance of a short QT interval in 18 825 low-risk individuals including athletes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 124-129

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094827

关键词

-

资金

  1. CRY
  2. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2011-16-501] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The short QT syndrome is a cardiac channelopathy characterised by accelerated repolarisation which manifests as a short QT interval on the ECG. The definition of a short QT interval is debated, ranging from <390 to <= 320 ms, and its clinical significance in healthy young individuals is unknown. We assessed the prevalence and medium-term significance of an isolated short QT interval in a diverse young British population. Methods Between 2005 and 2013, 18 825 apparently healthy people aged 14-35 years underwent cardiovascular evaluation with history, physical examination and ECG. QT intervals were measured by cardiologists using 4 recommended guidelines (Seattle 2013, Heart Rhythm Society 2013, European Society of Cardiology 2010 and American Heart Association 2009). Results The prevalence of a short QT interval was 0.1% (26 patients, <= 320 ms), 0.2% (44 patients, <= 330 ms), 7.9% (1478 patients, <380 ms), 15.8% (2973 patients, <390 ms). Male gender and Afro-Caribbean ethnicity had the strongest association with short QT intervals. Athletes had shorter QT intervals than non-athletes but athletic status did not predict short QT intervals. Individuals with short QT intervals <= 320 ms did not report syncope or a sinister family history, and during a follow-up period of 5.3 +/- 1.2 years, there were no deaths in this group. Conclusions The prevalence of a short QT interval depends on the recommended cut-off value. Even at values <= 320 ms, there was an excellent medium-term prognosis among 14 people followed. We conclude that a definition of <= 320 ms is realistic to prevent overdiagnosis and excessive investigations.

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

4.6
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