Intervalle QT chez les athlètes : comparaison de quatre formules de correction dans une population de jeunes sportifs de haut niveau

Griffet, Vincent; Dalmais, Etienne; Luciani, J. F.; Ertzscheid, C.; Mioulet, D.; Farhat, F.; Lantelme, Pierre

doi:10.1016/j.ancard.2016.06.001

Cited by 1 publication

(17 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 24 The cohort study was conducted in Slovakia in 2013. There were 2 studies published in the 1990s 18,23 and 8 published between 2012 and 2019 20 . There were 44 501 participants included across all studies, of which 57.6% ( n = 25, 621) were male.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study had a majority of female participants, 18 and 1 study included a 100% female population 24 . The mean age was provided for 5 studies and was within our age range of 14−35 years old 19–21,25,26 . There were 5 studies for which mean age was not provided, however, for all 5 studies the age range was within 14−35 years old 18,22–24,27 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…| 1111 lowest R 2 values and was reported to be most accurate in terms of its ability to remove the effects of HR at all HR ranges. [18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27] Notably, Fridericia was the preferred method proposed by all of the cross-sectional studies, and no papers specifically discouraged the use of QTcF. [18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27] Additionally, three studies determined that Framingham was not suitable for use for QT correction in athletes and young people, 19,23,25 and was not specifically recommended by any of the included studies.…”

Section: Comparison Of Qt Interval Correction Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27] Notably, Fridericia was the preferred method proposed by all of the cross-sectional studies, and no papers specifically discouraged the use of QTcF. [18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27] Additionally, three studies determined that Framingham was not suitable for use for QT correction in athletes and young people, 19,23,25 and was not specifically recommended by any of the included studies. QTcFr was reported as an alternative to QTcB in two studies, however, it performed worse than Fridericia in both.…”

Section: Comparison Of Qt Interval Correction Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were no studies that supported the use of QTcB within young adults and athletes (Table 2). Nine studies concluded that QTcB was least reliable method for removing the effect of HR and was inaccurate at both high and low HRs across all age [18][19][20][21][22][23][25][26][27] These studies concluded that QTcB tends to overestimate QTc at higher HRs and underestimate at low HRs.…”

Section: Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of methods for correcting QT interval in athletes and young people: A systematic review

Mahendran

Gupta

Davis

et al. 2023

Clinical Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%