How to Estimate QT Interval in Patients with Left or Right Bundle Branch Block: A Systematic Review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Accepteret manuskript, 306 KB, PDF-dokument

  • Kristian Fredholm
  • Mikkel Højlund
  • Mads Rye Bjerregaard
  • Jens Cosedis Nielsen
  • Fink-Jensen, Anders
  • Christoph U. Correll

Purpose/Background Prolonged QT interval related to psychopharmacological treatment is a risk factor for potentially life-threatening arrhythmias. Electrocardiographic measurements are recommended in patients with cardiovascular risk factors before initiating treatment with potentially QT-prolonging medications, such as certain antidepressants or antipsychotics. In patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right bundle branch block (RBBB), conventional QT-estimation methods will lead to overestimation of the QT interval, as the conduction defect, reflected by the QRS duration, will increase the QT interval without representing longer repolarization as in drug-induced QT prolongation. Methods/Procedures We conducted a systematic review of methods to estimate QT interval in the presence of LBBB or RBBB. We searched electronic databases Embase and Medline (last search, August 12, 2020). Findings/Results We found 8 different methods, including linear correction formulae with and without correction for heart rate, or simpler formula correcting QRS duration with empirically derived modifiers. Only 3 of 8 methods were applicable in the presence of RBBB, whereas all 8 methods could be applied in the presence of LBBB. Implications/Conclusions The QT interval is overestimated in patients with LBBB or RBBB, when using conventional measurements. Several alternative correction formulae exist, which can be applied using standard measurements from ordinary electrocardiographic readings. However, it is currently unknown whether or not the QT prolongation observed in the presence of bundle branch block significantly increases the risk of arrhythmias, as these formulae have not been tested against patient-specific clinical outcomes.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
Vol/bind41
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)323-326
Antal sider4
ISSN0271-0749
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2021

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
J.C.N. is supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0018658 and NNF17OC0029148). C.U.C. has been a consultant and/or advisor to or have received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Indivior, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, Karuna, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mylan, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Servier, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva. He provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka. He served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He is also a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

ID: 269610363