Why the study?
Does a new exponential formula (eQTc) improve the detection of QT prolongation compared to conventional QTc criteria in school-aged children?
Does a new exponential formula (eQTc) improve the detection of QT prolongation compared to conventional QTc criteria in school-aged children?
An exponential correction formula for the QT interval (eQTc) improves the detection of QT prolongation in school-aged children, particularly those with higher heart rates, compared to conventional criteria.
May improve QT detection at higher heart rates in children; leaves open need for validation before practice change.
We prospectively screened 14,227 school-aged children for evidence of QT prolongation using a exponential formula (eQTc = (QT interval)/(RR interval)0.31) and criteria (ie: abnormal eQTc was defined as being equal to or greater than 0.430 and 0.435 for male and female first-graders, respectively, and 0.440 and 0.445 for male and female seventh-graders, respectively). We previously reported that this new exponential correction of the QT interval may be useful for eliminating the effect of heart rate in school-aged children. Computer analyses detected 13 children with abnormally prolonged eQTc. All of the children who had abnormal QTc values by conventional QTc criteria also had abnormal eQTc values using the new criteria. Nine of these 13 children were ultimately confirmed to have a prolonged QT interval. Six cases of QT prolongation were detected that would not have been found if conventional screening criteria were used, since these cases had heart rates greater than 75 beats/min. One child had parents who were deaf. This case would not have been detected if only conventional screening were used. These results suggest that exponential correction of the QT interval (eQTc) is useful for prospectively screening large populations for evidence of QT prolongation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aihoshi et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: