BackgroundDrug safety precautions recommend monitoring of the corrected QT interval. To determine which QT correction formula to use in an automated QT‐monitoring algorithm in our electronic medical record, we studied rate correction performance of different QT correction formulae and their impact on risk assessment for mortality.Methods and ResultsAll electrocardiograms (ECGs) in patients >18 years with sinus rhythm, normal QRS duration and rate <90 beats per minute (bpm) in the University Hospitals of Leuven (Leuven, Belgium) during a 2‐month period were included. QT correction was performed with Bazett, Fridericia, Framingham, Hodges, and Rautaharju formulae. In total, 6609 patients were included (age, 59.8±16.2 years; 53.6% male and heart rate 68.8±10.6 bpm). Optimal rate correction was observed using Fridericia and Framingham; Bazett performed worst. A healthy subset showed 99% upper limits of normal for Bazett above current clinical standards: men 472 ms (95% CI, 464–478 ms) and women 482 ms (95% CI 474–490 ms). Multivariate Cox regression, including age, heart rate, and prolonged QTc, identified Framingham (hazard ratio [HR], 7.31; 95% CI, 4.10–13.05) and Fridericia (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 3.34–10.60) as significantly better predictors of 30‐day all‐cause mortality than Bazett (HR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.31–8.74). In a point‐prevalence study with haloperidol, the number of patients classified to be at risk for possibly harmful QT prolongation could be reduced by 50% using optimal QT rate correction.ConclusionsFridericia and Framingham correction formulae showed the best rate correction and significantly improved prediction of 30‐day and 1‐year mortality. With current clinical standards, Bazett overestimated the number of patients with potential dangerous QTc prolongation, which could lead to unnecessary safety measurements as withholding the patient of first‐choice medication.

Ever since the first case was reported at the end of 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious threat to public health globally in short time. At this point in time, there is no proven effective therapy. The interactions with concomitant disease are largely unknown, and that may be particularly pertinent to inherited arrhythmia syndrome. An arrhythmogenic effect of COVID-19 can be expected, potentially contributing to disease outcome. This may be of importance for patients with an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias, either secondary to acquired conditions or comorbidities or consequent to inherited syndromes. Management of patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes such as long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, short QT syndrome, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic may prove particularly challenging. Depending on the inherited defect involved, these patients may be susceptible to proarrhythmic effects of COVID-19-related issues such as fever, stress, electrolyte disturbances, and use of antiviral drugs. Here, we describe the potential COVID-19-associated risks and therapeutic considerations for patients with distinct inherited arrhythmia syndromes and provide recommendations, pending local possibilities, for their monitoring and management during this pandemic.

Our data suggest that iCEB (QT/QRS) is a simple but effective ECG surrogate of cardiac wavelength. iCEB is increased in situations that predispose to TdP and is decreased in situations that predispose to non-TdP mediated VT/VF. Therefore, iCEB might serve as a noninvasive and readily measurable marker to detect increased arrhythmic risk.

Stringent variant interpretation guidelines can lead to high rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) for genetically heterogeneous disease like long QT syndrome (LQTS) and Brugada syndrome (BrS). Quantitative and disease-specific customization of