Does analysis of QT dispersion from the 12-lead surface ECG predict mortality or arrhythmic events in post-myocardial infarction patients?
QT dispersion from the surface ECG failed to predict subsequent mortality or arrhythmic risk in post-myocardial infarction patients, unlike established markers such as LVEF and heart rate variability.
BACKGROUND: Risk stratification by means of analysis of QT dispersion (QTD) in the 12-lead surface ECG is under intense investigation in various patient populations. The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate the prognostic value of QTD and other ECG variables reflecting dispersion of ventricular repolarization in comparison with established risk stratifiers during long-term follow-up in a large cohort of post-myocardial infarction patients treated according to contemporary therapeutic guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 280 consecutive infarct survivors, the 12-lead ECG was optically scanned and digitized for analysis of QTD (QTmax-QTmin) and 25 other repolarization variables, including recently developed and validated parameters such as the T peak-to-T end interval and the area under the T wave. In addition, a variety of established risk stratifiers were assessed. After a mean follow-up period of 32+/-10 months, 30 patients reached one of the prospectively defined study end points (death, ventricular tachycardia, or resuscitated ventricular fibrillation). Comparisons between event and nonevent patients by means of Kaplan-Meier event probability analyses revealed that none of the ECG dispersion variables were of discriminative value. In contrast, variables such as left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.007), mean 24-hour heart rate (P=0.022), or heart rate variability (P=0.007) proved to be potentially useful risk stratifiers in this patient population. On multivariate analysis, only LVEF, heart rate variability, and a history of thrombolysis were independent predictors of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of QTD from the surface ECG even when performed with the best available methodology failed to predict subsequent risk in this large series of infarct survivors.
Zabel et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: