Key result
Automated QT analysis on Holter monitors differentiated pediatric patients with long QT syndrome from controls, with a mean QTc of 479 ms vs 429 ms (P≤0.001) and an AUC of 0.9494.
Why the study?
Does automated QT analysis on Holter monitors differentiate long QT syndrome from healthy controls in pediatric patients?
Case-Control (n=117)
Does automated QT analysis on Holter monitors differentiate long QT syndrome from healthy controls in pediatric patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 479% vs 429%
p-value: p=≤0.001
Automated QT analysis on Holter monitors provides highly sensitive and specific thresholds to differentiate pediatric patients with long QT syndrome from healthy controls.
Automated Holter QT analysis may aid differentiation of pediatric LQTS in borderline cases; leaves open need for prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Borderline QTc is a common referral to the pediatric cardiology clinic. Evaluation is challenging due to significant overlap of normal and abnormal QTc ranges. We hypothesized that automated QT analysis on Holter could differentiate between patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS) and healthy controls. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 39 patients with known genotype-positive, phenotype-positive LQTS who underwent Holter monitoring between January 2010 and January 2016. They were compared 2:1 to age- and sex-matched controls. Automated QT analysis data were analyzed. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in all automated QT and QTc fields, except minimum QTc interval (P = 0.57). Mean QTc interval (LQTS 479 ± 28 ms vs controls 429 ± 16 ms; P ≤ 0.001) and percent QTc intervals (%QTc) >450 ms (LQTS 80 ± 28% vs controls 14 ± 16%; P ≤ 0.001) were selected for further analysis. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated for each variable demonstrating high area under the curve values of 0.9494 and 0.9540, respectively. Threshold values of ≥461 ms for mean QTc (sensitivity 79.49%, specificity 98.72%) and ≥65% of %QTc >450 ms (sensitivity 79.49%, specificity 98.72%) allowed highly specific discrimination between cohorts (false positive rate 1.09%). Similarly, thresholds of <434 ms (sensitivity 97.44, specificity 61.54) for mean QTc and <32% (sensitivity 89.74, specificity 87.18) for %QTc >450 ms resulted in highly sensitive discrimination (false negative rates 2.17% and 8.7%). CONCLUSION: Holter monitor testing with automated QT analysis may be a useful tool to differentiate LQTS and control patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Follansbee et al. (2017) conducted a case-control in Long QT syndrome (LQTS) (n=117). Automated QT analysis on Holter monitors vs. Age- and sex-matched healthy controls was evaluated on Mean QTc interval (p=≤0.001). Automated QT analysis on Holter monitors differentiated pediatric patients with long QT syndrome from controls, with a mean QTc of 479 ms vs 429 ms (P≤0.001) and an AUC of 0.9494.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: