학술논문
Comparison of methods for correcting QT interval in athletes and young people: A systematic review.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Mahendran S; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.; Gupta I; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.; Davis J; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.; Davis AJ; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.; Orchard JW; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.; Orchard JJ; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Source
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7903272 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-8737 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01609289 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Clin Cardiol Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Screening elite athletes for conditions associated with sudden cardiac death is recommended by numerous international guidelines. Current athlete electrocardiogram interpretation criteria recommend the Bazett formula (QTcB) for correcting QT interval. However, other formulae may perform better at lower and higher heart rates (HR). This review aimed to examine the literature on various QT correction methods in athletes and young people aged 14-35 years and determine the most accurate method of calculating QTc in this population. A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and SportDiscus was performed. Papers comparing at least two different methods of QT interval correction in athletes or young people were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using a standardized tool. The search strategy identified 545 papers, of which 10 met the criteria and were included. Nine of these studies concluded that QTcB was least reliable for removing the effect of HR and was inaccurate at both high (>90 beats per min [BPM]) and low (<60 BPM) HRs. No studies supported the use of QTcB in athletes and young people. Alternative QT correction algorithms such as Fridericia (QTcF) produce more accurate correction of QT interval at HRs seen in athletes and young people. QTcB is less accurate at lower and higher HRs. QTcF has been shown to be more accurate in these HR ranges and may be preferred to QTcB for QTc calculation in athletes and young people. However, accurate QTc reference values for discrete HRs using alternative algorithms are not well established and require further research.
(© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)
(© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)