Tisdale James E, Kovacs Richard, Mi Deming, McCabe George P, Cariera Beth L, Sharma Nagaraja, Rosman Howard
Department of Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA.
Pharmacotherapy. 2007 Feb;27(2):175-82. doi: 10.1592/phco.27.2.175.
To determine if the uncorrected QT interval (QT(u)) more accurately predicts drug-induced torsade de pointes than QT intervals corrected using the Bazett's (QT(B)), Fridericia (QT(Frid)), or Framingham (QT(Fram)) methods.
Retrospective analysis of a previously reported case-control study of risk factors for haloperidol-induced torsade de pointes.
Large tertiary care teaching hospital.
Forty-six critically ill patients who received intravenous haloperidol for sedation; seven developed torsade de pointes.
The QT intervals were measured manually by one investigator from electrocardiograms performed before and during haloperidol therapy. Logistic regression analysis for prediction of torsade de pointes was performed, incorporating QT(u), QT(B), QT(Frid), QT(Fram), and RR intervals measured during treatment. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed. Primary outcome measures were proportion of explained variation (maximum-rescaled R2); area under the ROC curves for QT(u), QT(B), QT(Frid), QT(Fram), and RR interval; and sensitivity and specificity for prediction of haloperidol-induced torsade de pointes. The QT(u) was associated with the highest R2 compared with QT(Fram), QT(Frid), QT(B), and RR interval (0.77, 0.73, 0.68, 0.53, and 0.30, respectively). No significant differences in areas under the ROC curves were found between any of the QT-interval methods. Areas under the ROC curves for QT(u) and QT(Fram) trended toward being greater than that associated with the RR interval. All QT-interval methods were highly sensitive (100% for each), whereas the RR interval was less sensitive (86%); QT(u) and QT(Fram) were most specific (82%) compared with the QT(Frid) (72%), QT(B) (64%), and RR interval (36%).
Compared with QT(B) and QT(Frid), the QT(u) and QT(Fram) best predicted haloperidol-induced torsade de pointes in critically ill patients; the QT(Fram) offered no advantage over the QT(u).
确定未校正的QT间期(QT(u))相比使用Bazett法(QT(B))、Fridericia法(QT(Frid))或Framingham法(QT(Fram))校正的QT间期,是否能更准确地预测药物诱导的尖端扭转型室速。
对先前报道的关于氟哌啶醇诱导尖端扭转型室速危险因素的病例对照研究进行回顾性分析。
大型三级护理教学医院。
46例接受静脉注射氟哌啶醇镇静的重症患者;7例发生尖端扭转型室速。
由一名研究人员在氟哌啶醇治疗前和治疗期间从心电图手动测量QT间期。进行逻辑回归分析以预测尖端扭转型室速,纳入治疗期间测量的QT(u)、QT(B)、QT(Frid)、QT(Fram)和RR间期。构建受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线。主要结局指标为解释变异比例(最大重标R2);QT(u)、QT(B)、QT(Frid)、QT(Fram)和RR间期的ROC曲线下面积;以及预测氟哌啶醇诱导尖端扭转型室速的敏感性和特异性。与QT(Fram)、QT(Frid)、QT(B)和RR间期相比,QT(u)的R2最高(分别为0.77、0.73、0.68、0.53和0.30)。在任何QT间期方法之间,ROC曲线下面积均未发现显著差异。QT(u)和QT(Fram)的ROC曲线下面积有大于RR间期相关面积的趋势。所有QT间期方法均具有高敏感性(每种方法均为100%),而RR间期敏感性较低(86%);与QT(Frid)(72%)、QT(B)(64%)和RR间期(36%)相比,QT(u)和QT(Fram)特异性最高(82%)。
与QT(B)和QT(Frid)相比,QT(u)和QT(Fram)最能预测重症患者中氟哌啶醇诱导的尖端扭转型室速;QT(Fram)相比QT(u)并无优势。