Why the study?
Does longitudinal change in intracardiac QT variability index predict fast ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in patients with structural heart disease and an ICD?
Does longitudinal change in intracardiac QT variability index predict fast ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in patients with structural heart disease and an ICD?
While population-averaged increases in intracardiac QT variability index are associated with higher odds of fast ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, individual patient-specific longitudinal trends do not reliably predict these arrhythmic events.
BACKGROUND: While it is known that elevated baseline intracardiac repolarization lability is associated with the risk of fast ventricular tachycardia (FVT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF), the effect of its longitudinal changes on the risk of FVT/VF is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Near-field (NF) right ventricular (RV) intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) were recorded every 3-6 months at rest in 248 patients with structural heart disease [mean age 61.2 ± 13.3; 185(75%) male; 162(65.3%) ischemic cardiomyopathy] and implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) [201 (81%) primary prevention]. Intracardiac beat-to-beat QT variability index (QTVINF) was measured on NF RV EGM. During the first study phase (median 18 months), participants made on average 2.4 visits. Then remote follow-up was continued for an additional median period of 3 years. Average QTVINF did not change during the first year after ICD implantation (-0.342 ± 0.603 at baseline vs. -0.262 ± 0.552 at 6 months vs. -0.334 ± 0.603 at 12 months); however, it decreased thereafter (-0.510 ± 0.603 at 18 months; P = 0.042). Adjusted population-averaged GEE model showed that the odds of developing FVT/VF increased by 75% for each 1 unit increase in QTVINF. (OR 1.75 [95%CI 1.05-2.92]; P = 0.031). However, individual patient-specific QTVINF trends (increasing, decreasing, flat) varied from patient to patient. For a given patient, the odds of developing FVT/VF were not associated with increasing or decreasing QTVINF over time [OR 1.27; (95%CI 0.05-30.10); P = 0.881]. CONCLUSION: While on average the odds of FVT/VF increased with an increase in QTVINF, patient-specific longitudinal trends in QTVINF did not affect the odds of FVT/VF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guduru et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Frontiers in Physiology