No Association Between T-peak to T-end Interval on the Resting ECG and Long-Term Incidence of Ventricular Arrhythmias Triggering ICD Interventions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Potential of using the T-peak to T-end (TpTe) interval as an electrocardiographic parameter reflecting the transmural dispersion of ventricular repolarization (TDR) to identify patients (pts.) with higher risk of malignant ventricular arrhythmias (MVA) for better selection of candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention (PP) of sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains controversial. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the TpTe interval in patient's preimplantation resting 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and the incidence of MVA resulting in appropriate ICD intervention (AI). The secondary objective was to assess its relationship to overall mortality.

METHODS

A total of 243 consecutive pts. with severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction (MI) with a single-chamber ICD for PP of SCD from one implantation center were included. Excluded were all pts. with any other disease that could interfere with the indication of ICD implantation. Primarily investigated intervals were measured manually in accordance with accepted methodology. Data on ICD interventions were acquired from device interrogation during regular outpatient visits. Survival data were collected from the databases of health insurance and regulatory authorities.

RESULTS

We did not find a significant relationship between the duration of the TpTe interval and the incidence of MVA (71.5 ms in pts. with MVA vs. 70 ms in pts. without MVA; = 0.408). Similar results were obtained for the corrected TpTe interval (TpTec) and the ratio of TpTe to QT interval (76.3 ms vs. 76.5 ms; = 0.539 and 0.178 vs. 0.181; = 0.547, respectively). There was also no significant difference between the duration of TpTe, TpTec and TpTe/QT ratio in pts. groups by overall mortality (71.5 ms in the deceased group vs. 70 ms in the survivors group; HR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; = 0.715, 76.3 ms vs. 76.5 ms; HR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02; = 0.208 and 0.178 vs. 0.186; = 0.116, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests no significant association of overall or MVA-free survival with ECG parameters reflecting TDR (TpTe, TpTec) in patients with systolic dysfunction after MI and ICD implanted for primary prevention.