Key result
The QT-stand test and EST showed no significant QTc differences between low probability and confirmed LQTS children at most transition points, except at 1 min into exercise (437 vs 460 ms, p=0.029).
Why the study?
The utility of exercise stress testing and QT-stand testing to unmask QT prolongation in children is debated, and whether they can differentiate children with a low probability of LQTS from confirmed LQTS is unknown.
Can the QT-stand test or EST differentiate children with a low probability of LQTS from those with confirmed LQTS?
Observational (n=37)
Can the QT-stand test or EST differentiate children with a low probability of LQTS from those with confirmed LQTS?
Absolute Event Rate: 437% vs 460%
p-value: p=0.029
The diagnostic utility of the QT stand test and EST remains unclear in pediatric LQTS, as they failed to differentiate low probability patients from confirmed LQTS cases.
QT-stand test and EST largely fail to differentiate pediatric LQTS; leaves diagnostic utility open and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a dangerous arrhythmia disorder that often presents in childhood and adolescence. The exercise stress test (EST) and QT-stand test may unmask QT interval prolongation at key heart rate transition points in LQTS, but their utility in children is debated. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the QT-stand test or EST can differentiate children with a low probability of LQTS from those with confirmed LQTS. METHODS: This retrospective study compares the corrected QT intervals (QTc) of children (<19 years) during the QT-stand test and EST. Patients were divided into three groups for comparison: confirmed LQTS (n = 14), low probability of LQTS (n = 14), and a control population (n = 9). RESULTS: Using the Bazett formula, confirmed LQTS patients had longer QTc intervals than controls when supine, standing, and at 3-4 min of recovery (p ≤ .01). Patients with a low probability of LQTS had longer QTc duration upon standing (p = .018) and at 1 min of recovery (p = .016) versus controls. There were no significant QTc differences at any transition point between low probability and confirmed LQTS. Using the Fridericia formula, differences in QTc between low probability and confirmed LQTS were also absent at the transition points examined, except at 1 min into exercise, where low probability patients had shorter QTc intervals (437 vs. 460 ms, p = .029). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic utility of the QT stand test and EST remains unclear in pediatric LQTS. The formula used for heart rate correction may influence accuracy, and dynamic T-U wave morphology changes may confound interpretation in low probability situations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roston et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Long QT syndrome (LQTS) (n=37). QT-stand test and exercise stress test (EST) vs. Confirmed LQTS vs low probability of LQTS vs controls was evaluated on Corrected QT intervals (QTc) at 1 min into exercise (Fridericia formula) (p=0.029). The QT-stand test and EST showed no significant QTc differences between low probability and confirmed LQTS children at most transition points, except at 1 min into exercise (437 vs 460 ms, p=0.029).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: