Rohatgi, Ram K.

BackgroundProlongation of the QT on the surface electrocardiogram can be due to either genetic or acquired causes. Distinguishing congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) from acquired QT prolongation has important prognostic and management implications. We aimed to investigate if quantitative T‐wave analysis could provide a tool for the physician to differentiate between congenital and acquired QT prolongation.MethodsPatients were identified through an institution‐wide computer‐based QT screening system which alerts the physician if the QTc ≥ 500 ms. ECGs were retrospectively analyzed with an automated T‐wave analysis program. Congenital LQTS was compared in a 1:3 ratio to those with an identified acquired etiology for QT prolongation (electrolyte abnormality and/or prescription of known QT prolongation medications). Linear discriminant analysis was performed using 10‐fold cross‐validation to statistically test the selected features.ResultsThe 12‐lead ECG of 38 patients with congenital LQTS and 114 patients with drug‐induced and/or electrolyte‐mediated QT prolongation were analyzed. In lead V5, patients with acquired QT prolongation had a shallower T wave right slope (−2,322 vs. −3,593 mV/s), greater T‐peak‐Tend interval (109 vs. 92 ms), and smaller T wave center of gravity on the x axis (290 ms vs. 310 ms; p < .001). These features could distinguish congenital from acquired causes in 77% of cases (sensitivity 90%, specificity 58%).ConclusionT‐wave morphological analysis on lead V5 of the surface ECG could successfully differentiate congenital from acquired causes of QT prolongation.

Background— Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) is characterized by QT prolongation. However, the QT interval itself is insufficient for diagnosis, unless the corrected QT interval is repeatedly ≥500 ms without an acquired explanation. Further, the majority of LQTS patients have a corrected QT interval below this threshold, and a significant minority has normal resting corrected QT interval values. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a novel, quantitative T wave morphological analysis program to differentiate LQTS patients from healthy controls. Methods and Results— We analyzed a genotyped cohort of 420 patients (22±16 years, 43% male) with either LQT1 (61%) or LQT2 (39%). ECG analysis was conducted using a novel, proprietary T wave analysis program that quantitates subtle changes in T wave morphology. The top 3 discriminating features in each ECG lead were determined and the lead with the best discrimination selected. Classification was performed using a linear discriminant classifier and validated on an untouched cohort. The top 3 features were Tpeak–Tend interval, T wave left slope, and T wave center of gravity x axis (last 25% of the T wave). Lead V6 had the best discrimination. It could distinguish 86.8% of LQTS patients from healthy controls. Moreover, it distinguished 83.33% of patients with concealed LQTS from controls, despite having essentially identical resting corrected QT interval values. Conclusions— T wave quantitative analysis on the 12-lead surface ECG provides an effective, novel tool to distinguish patients with either LQT1/LQT2 from healthy matched controls. It can provide guidance while mutation-specific genetic testing is in motion for family members.