| Title |
Risk factors for QTc interval prolongation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00228-017-2381-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charlotte P. M. Heemskerk, Marieke Pereboom, Karlijn van Stralen, Florine A. Berger, Patricia M. L. A. van den Bemt, Aaf F. M. Kuijper, Ruud T. M. van der Hoeven, Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse, Matthijs L. Becker |
| Abstract |
Prolongation of the QTc interval may result in Torsade de Pointes, a ventricular arrhythmia. Numerous risk factors for QTc interval prolongation have been described, including the use of certain drugs. In clinical practice, there is much debate about the management of the risks involved. In this study, we quantified the effect of these risk factors on the length of the QTc interval. We analyzed all ECGs that were taken during routine practice between January 2013 and October 2016 in the Spaarne Gasthuis, a general teaching hospital in the Netherlands. We collected laboratory values in the week before the ECG recording and the drugs prescribed. For the identification of risk factors, we used multilevel linear regression analysis to correct for multiple ECG recordings per patient. We included 133,359 ECGs in our study, taken in 40,037 patients. Patients using one QT-prolonging drug had a 11.08 ms (95% CI 10.63-11.52; p < 0.001) longer QTc interval. Patients using two QT-prolonging drugs had a 3.04 ms (95% CI 2.06-4.02; p < 0.001) increase in the QTc interval compared to patients using one QT-prolonging drug. Women had a longer QTc interval compared to men (16.30 ms 95% CI 14.59-18.01; p < 0.001). The QTc interval increased with increasing age, but the difference between men and women diminished. Other independent risk factors that significantly prolonged the QTc interval with at least 10 ms were hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, and the use of loop diuretics. We identified and quantified various risk factors for QTc interval prolongation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 15% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,862,222
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#113
of 2,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,421
of 437,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#3
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.