4.8 Article

Long-QT syndrome after age 40

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 117, 期 17, 页码 2192-2201

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729368

关键词

long-QT syndrome; risk factors; mortality

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-33843, HL-51618] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Previous studies that assessed the risk of life-threatening cardiac events in patients with congenital long-QT syndrome (LQTS) have focused mainly on the first 4 decades of life, whereas the clinical course of this inherited cardiac disorder in the older population has not been studied. Methods and Results - The risk of aborted cardiac arrest or death from age 41 though 75 years was assessed in 2759 subjects from the International LQTS Registry, categorized into electrocardiographically affected (corrected QT interval [QTc] >= 470 ms), borderline (QTc 440 to 469 ms), and unaffected (QTc <440 ms) subgroups. The affected versus unaffected adjusted hazard ratio for aborted cardiac arrest or death was 2.65 (P < 0.001) in the age range of 41 to 60 years and 1.23 (P = 0.31) in the age range of 61 to 75 years. The clinical course of study subjects displayed gender differences: Affected LQTS women experienced a significantly higher cumulative event rate (26%) than borderline (16%) and unaffected (12%) women (P = 0.001), whereas event rates were similar among the 3 respective subgroups of men (29%, 26%, and 27%; P = 0.16). Recent syncope (< 2 years in the past) was the predominant risk factor in affected subjects (hazard ratio 9.92, P < 0.001), and the LQT3 genotype was identified as the most powerful predictor of outcome in a subset of 871 study subjects who were genetically tested for a known LQTS mutation (hazard ratio 4.76, P = 0.02). Conclusions - LQTS subjects maintain a high risk for life-threatening cardiac events after age 40 years. The phenotypic expression of affected subjects is influenced by age-specific factors related to gender, clinical history, and the LQTS genotype.

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

4.8
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