4.3 Article

Prolonged QTc indicates the clinical severity and poor prognosis in patients with isolated left ventricular non-compaction

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
Volume 33, Issue 12, Pages 2013-2020

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-017-1209-9

Keywords

LVNC; Corrected QT; Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; Fibrosis

Funding

  1. Key Projects in Chinese National Science & References Technology Pillar Program [2011BAI11B11]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81271536, 81670349]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Isolated left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) is a rare cardiomyopathy that leads to severe clinical complications. This study is to investigate whether or not prolonged QTc is a good indicator for evaluating the severity of fibrosis and predicting the prognosis of LVNC, and if native T1 can be used to quantify the fibrosis. 32 LVNC patients and 14 healthy controls with matched age and sex were examined by CMR and ECG to acquire native T1, QTc interval, and ECG abnormalities. 18 LVNC patients had normal QTc and 14 LVNC patients had prolonged QTc. The mean native T1 value of the normal controls, normal QTc and prolonged QTc patients was 1096.0 +/- 41.5, 1141.98 +/- 45.46, and 1182.67 +/- 42.02 ms, respectively. One-way ANVOA showed significant differences in native T1 among three groups (F = 14.9, p < 0.001). In LVNC patients, the QTc interval significantly correlated with LVEF (p = 0.003, r = 0.51) and native T1 values (p = 0.015, R = -0.47). This suggests that prolonged QTc is associated with more severe compacted myocardial fibrosis, more cardiac dysfunction, and a poorer prognosis in LVNC patients. Follow-up data showed significant differences in adverse events between patients with normal QTc and patients with prolonged QTc (p = 0.036). Prolonged QTc interval leads to more severe compacted myocardial fibrosis, poorer cardiac dysfunction, and poorer prognosis in LVNC patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available