Essential Site Maintenance: Authorea-powered sites will be updated circa 15:00-17:00 Eastern on Tuesday 5 November.
There should be no interruption to normal services, but please contact us at help@authorea.com in case you face any issues.

loading page

Differential diagnosis between LQT1 and LQT2 by QT/RR relationships using 24-hour Holter monitoring: a multicenter cross-sectional study
  • +5
  • Kenji Yodogawa,
  • Takeshi Aiba,
  • Naotaka Sumitomo,
  • Teppei Yamamoto,
  • Hiroshige Murata,
  • Yu-ki Iwasaki,
  • Yoshihiro Kokubo,
  • Wataru Shimizu
Kenji Yodogawa
Nippon Medical School

Corresponding Author:yodo@nms.ac.jp

Author Profile
Takeshi Aiba
National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center
Author Profile
Naotaka Sumitomo
Saitama Medical University International Medical Center
Author Profile
Teppei Yamamoto
Nippon Medical School
Author Profile
Hiroshige Murata
Nippon Medical School
Author Profile
Yu-ki Iwasaki
Nippon Medical School
Author Profile
Yoshihiro Kokubo
National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center
Author Profile
Wataru Shimizu
Nippon Medical School
Author Profile

Abstract

Background The clinical course and therapeutic strategies in the congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) are genotype-specific. However, accurate estimation of LQTS-genotype is often difficult from the standard 12-lead ECG. Objectives This study aims to evaluate the utility of QT/RR slope analysis by the 24-hour Holter monitoring for differential diagnosis of LQTS-genotype between LQT1 and LQT2. Methods This cross-sectional study enrolled 54 genetically identified LQTS patients (29 LQT1 and 25 LQT2) recruited from 3 medical institutions. The QT-apex (QTa) interval and the QT-end (QTe) interval at each 15-second were plotted against the R-R intervals and the linear regression (QTa/RR and QTe/RR slopes, respectively) were calculated from the entire 24-hour and separately during the day or night-time periods of the Holter recordings. Results The QTe/RR and QTa/RR slopes at the entire 24-hour were significantly steeper in LQT2 compared to those in LQT1 patients (0.262 +/- 0.063 vs 0.204 +/- 0.055, P = 0.0007; 0.233 +/- 0.052 vs 0.181 +/- 0.040, P = 0.0002, respectively). The QTe interval was significantly longer, QTe/RR and QTa/RR slopes at daytime were significantly steeper in LQT2 than in LQT1 patients. The receiver operating curve analysis revealed that the QTa/RR slope of 0.211 at the entire 24-hour Holter was the best cut-off value for differential diagnosis between LQT1 and LQT2 (sensitivity: 80.0%, specificity: 75.0% and area under curve: 0.804 [95%CI = 0.68-0.93]). Conclusion The continuous 24-hour QT/RR analysis using the Holter monitoring may be useful to predict the genotype of congenital LQTS, particularly for LQT1 and LQT2.