Why the study?
Do patients with coronary slow flow have prolonged Tp-Te interval and increased Tp-Te/QT ratio compared to controls?
Do patients with coronary slow flow have prolonged Tp-Te interval and increased Tp-Te/QT ratio compared to controls?
Patients with coronary slow flow exhibit prolonged Tp-Te interval and increased Tp-Te/QT ratio, suggesting increased transmural dispersion of repolarization and potential risk for ventricular arrhythmias.
May signal arrhythmia vulnerability in coronary slow flow; hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: Coronary slow flow (CSF) phenomenon is described by angiographically normal coronary arteries with delayed opacification of the distal vasculature. Several studies have suggested that the interval from the peak to the end of the electrocardiographic T wave (Tp-Te) may correspond to the transmural dispersion of the repolarization and that increased Tp-Te interval and Tp-Te/QT ratio are associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ventricular repolarization by using Tp-Te interval and Tp-Te/QT ratio in patients with CSF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 50 CSF patients (40 male, mean age 48.6±12.5 years) and 40 control individuals (23 male, mean age 47.8±12.5 years). Tp-Te interval and Tp-Te/QT ratio were measured from the 12-lead electrocardiogram. These parameters were compared in groups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the study groups were comparable. In electrocardiographic parameters analysis, QT and corrected QT were similar in CSF patients compared to the controls (357±35.2 vs 362±38.0 milliseconds and 419±25.8 vs 430±44.2 milliseconds, all p value >0.05). Tp-Te interval, Tp-Te/QT and Tp-Te/QTc ratio were significantly higher in CSF patients (85±13.7 vs 74±9.9 milliseconds and 0.24±0.03 vs 0.20±0.02 and 0.20±0.03 vs 0.17±0.02 all p value <0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that QTd, Tp-Te interval and Tp-Te/QT ratio are prolonged in patients with CSF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tenekecioğlu et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: