Key result
Continuous 24-hour Holter QT/RR slope analysis differentiates LQT2 from LQT1 via ~28% steeper QTe/RR slopes.
Why the study?
LQTS clinical course and therapies are genotype-specific, but accurately estimating LQTS-genotype from standard 12-lead ECG is often difficult.
Does QT/RR slope analysis by 24-hour Holter monitoring differentiate between LQT1 and LQT2 genotypes in patients with congenital long QT syndrome?
Cross-Sectional (n=54)
Yes
Does QT/RR slope analysis by 24-hour Holter monitoring differentiate between LQT1 and LQT2 genotypes in patients with congenital long QT syndrome?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.262% vs 0.204%
p-value: p=0.0007
Continuous 24-hour QT/RR slope analysis using Holter monitoring provides a useful non-invasive method to differentiate between LQT1 and LQT2 genotypes.
Background The clinical course and therapeutic strategies in the congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) are genotype-specific. However, accurate estimation of LQTS-genotype is often difficult from the standard 12-lead ECG. Objectives This study aims to evaluate the utility of QT/RR slope analysis by the 24-hour Holter monitoring for differential diagnosis of LQTS-genotype between LQT1 and LQT2. Methods This cross-sectional study enrolled 54 genetically identified LQTS patients (29 LQT1 and 25 LQT2) recruited from 3 medical institutions. The QT-apex (QTa) interval and the QT-end (QTe) interval at each 15-second were plotted against the R-R intervals and the linear regression (QTa/RR and QTe/RR slopes, respectively) were calculated from the entire 24-hour and separately during the day or night-time periods of the Holter recordings. Results The QTe/RR and QTa/RR slopes at the entire 24-hour were significantly steeper in LQT2 compared to those in LQT1 patients (0.262 +/- 0.063 vs 0.204 +/- 0.055, P = 0.0007; 0.233 +/- 0.052 vs 0.181 +/- 0.040, P = 0.0002, respectively). The QTe interval was significantly longer, QTe/RR and QTa/RR slopes at daytime were significantly steeper in LQT2 than in LQT1 patients. The receiver operating curve analysis revealed that the QTa/RR slope of 0.211 at the entire 24-hour Holter was the best cut-off value for differential diagnosis between LQT1 and LQT2 (sensitivity: 80.0%, specificity: 75.0% and area under curve: 0.804 [95%CI = 0.68-0.93]). Conclusion The continuous 24-hour QT/RR analysis using the Holter monitoring may be useful to predict the genotype of congenital LQTS, particularly for LQT1 and LQT2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yodogawa et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) (n=54). LQT2 genotype vs. LQT1 genotype was evaluated on QTe/RR slope at the entire 24-hour (p=0.0007). Continuous 24-hour QT/RR slope analysis using Holter monitoring differentiated LQT2 from LQT1, with QTe/RR slopes significantly steeper in LQT2 patients (0.262 vs 0.204; P=0.0007).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: