Suppr超能文献

先天性长QT综合征的诊断失误

Diagnostic miscues in congenital long-QT syndrome.

作者信息

Taggart Nathaniel W, Haglund Carla M, Tester David J, Ackerman Michael J

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics/Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.

出版信息

Circulation. 2007 May 22;115(20):2613-20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.661082. Epub 2007 May 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Long-QT syndrome (LQTS) is a potentially lethal cardiac channelopathy that can be mistaken for palpitations, neurocardiogenic syncope, and epilepsy. Because of increased physician and public awareness of warning signs suggestive of LQTS, there is the potential for LQTS to be overdiagnosed. We sought to determine the agreement between the dismissal diagnosis from an LQTS subspecialty clinic and the original referral diagnosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from the medical record were compared with data from the outside evaluation for 176 consecutive patients (121 females, median age 16 years, average referral corrected QT interval [QTc] of 481 ms) referred with a diagnosis of LQTS. After evaluation at Mayo Clinic's LQTS Clinic, patients were categorized as having definite LQTS (D-LQTS), possible LQTS (P-LQTS), or no LQTS (No-LQTS). Seventy-three patients (41%) were categorized as No-LQTS, 56 (32%) as P-LQTS, and only 47 (27%) as D-LQTS. The yield of genetic testing among D-LQTS patients was 78% compared with 34% for P-LQTS and 0% among No-LQTS patients (P<0.0001). The average QTc was greater in either D-LQTS or P-LQTS than in No-LQTS (461 versus 424 ms, P<0.0001). Vasovagal syncope was more common among the No-LQTS subset (28%) than the P-LQTS/D-LQTS group (8%; P=0.04). Determinants for discordance (ie, positive outside diagnosis versus No-LQTS) included overestimation of QTc, diagnosing LQTS on the basis of "borderline" QTc values, and interpretation of a vasovagal fainting episode as an LQTS-precipitated cardiac event.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic concordance was present for less than one third of the patients who sought a second opinion. Two of every 5 patients referred with the diagnosis of LQTS departed without such a diagnosis. Miscalculation of the QTc, misinterpretation of the normal distribution of QTc values, and misinterpretation of symptoms appear to be responsible for most of the diagnostic miscues.

摘要

背景

长QT综合征(LQTS)是一种潜在致命的心脏通道病,可能被误诊为心悸、神经心源性晕厥和癫痫。由于医生和公众对LQTS警示信号的认识提高,存在LQTS被过度诊断的可能性。我们试图确定LQTS专科门诊的排除诊断与最初转诊诊断之间的一致性。

方法与结果

对176例连续转诊诊断为LQTS的患者(121例女性,中位年龄16岁,平均转诊校正QT间期[QTc]为481毫秒)的病历数据与外部评估数据进行比较。在梅奥诊所的LQTS门诊评估后,患者被分类为确诊LQTS(D-LQTS)、可能LQTS(P-LQTS)或无LQTS(No-LQTS)。73例患者(41%)被分类为No-LQTS,56例(32%)为P-LQTS,仅47例(27%)为D-LQTS。D-LQTS患者的基因检测阳性率为78%,P-LQTS患者为34%,No-LQTS患者为0%(P<0.0001)。D-LQTS或P-LQTS患者的平均QTc均高于No-LQTS患者(461对424毫秒,P<0.0001)。血管迷走性晕厥在No-LQTS亚组中(28%)比P-LQTS/D-LQTS组(8%)更常见(P=0.04)。不一致的决定因素(即外部诊断为阳性与No-LQTS)包括QTc高估、基于“临界”QTc值诊断LQTS以及将血管迷走性昏厥发作解释为LQTS诱发的心脏事件。

结论

寻求二次诊断的患者中,不到三分之一存在诊断一致性。每5例转诊诊断为LQTS的患者中有2例离开时未得到该诊断。QTc计算错误、QTc值正态分布的错误解读以及症状的错误解读似乎是大多数诊断错误的原因。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验