This work was partially supported by grant KONTAKT No. ME09050 of the Ministry of the Education of the Czech Republic, by European Regional Development Fund—Project FNUSA-ICRC No. CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0123, by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US Department of Healthy and Human Services grant U24HL096556 and by grant No. P102/12/2034 of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic.
Measure of the QT–RR Dynamic Coupling in Patients with the Long QT Syndrome
Article first published online: 13 AUG 2012
© 2012, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology
Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 323–330, October 2012
How to Cite
Halamek, J., Couderc, J.-P., Jurak, P., Vondra, V., Zareba, W., Viscor, I. and Leinveber, M.Sc., P. (2012), Measure of the QT–RR Dynamic Coupling in Patients with the Long QT Syndrome. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology, 17: 323–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-474X.2012.00526.x
Conflict of interest: None.
- Issue published online: 25 OCT 2012
- Article first published online: 13 AUG 2012
- long QT syndrome;
- dynamic QT–RR coupling;
- Holter recording;
- QT adaptation;
- QT parameters
Background: The patients with the long QT syndrome type-1 (LQT-1) have an impaired adaptation of the QT interval to heart rate changes. Yet, the description of the dynamic QT–RR coupling in genotyped LQT-1 has never been thoroughly investigated.
Method: We propose a method to model the dynamic QT–RR coupling by defining a transfer function characterizing the relationship between a QT interval and its previous RR intervals measured from ambulatory Holter recordings. Three parameters are used to characterize the QT–RR coupling: a fast gain (GainF), a slow gain (GainL), and a time constant (τ). We investigated the values of these parameters across genders, and in genotyped LQT-1 patients with normal QTc interval duration (QTc < 470 ms).
Results: The QT–RR dynamic profiles are significantly different between LQT-1 patients (97) and controls (154): LQT-1 have longer QTc interval (453 ± 35 vs. 384 ± 26 ms, P < 0.0001), and an increased dependency of the QT interval to previous RR changes revealed by a larger GainL (0.22 ± 0.06 vs. 0.18 ± 0.07, P < 0.0001) and GainF (0.05 ± 0.02 vs. 0.03 ± 0.01, P < 0.0001). Importantly, LQT-1 patients have a faster QT dynamic response to previous RR changes described by τ: 122 ± 44 vs. 172 ± 92 beats (P < 0.0001). This faster QT dynamic response of the QT–RR dynamic coupling remained in LQT-1 patients with QTc in a normal range (<430 ms).
Conclusions: The measurement of QT–RR dynamic coupling could be used in patients suspected to carry a concealed form of the LQT-1 syndrome, or to provide insights into the types of arrhythmogenic triggers a patient may be prone to.