Abstract 15631: The Hemodynamic Determinants and Physiologic Correlates of QTc Interval Using Impedance Cardiography in Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prolonged QTc interval is a known risk factor for adverse cardiac events, including sudden and non-sudden cardiac death. Understanding the determinants and physiologic correlates of QTc can guide the proper strategy for the primary prevention of sudden death in high risk patients. Methods & Results: This was an observational study that recruited ambulatory heart failure patients (NYHA I-III) from an outpatient clinic in NL, Canada. In supine resting position, consented participants underwent non-invasive 12-lead ECG and hemodynamic monitoring using BioZ Dx Impedance Cardiography (Sonosite Inc., WA, USA). ECGs were evaluated by a reviewer blinded to clinical data. Participants with pacing (n=12) or left bundle branch block (n=9) were excluded. Three measures of interest were automatically computed: (1) QTc interval (i.e., from QRS onset to T offset), (2) QRS duration (i.e., from QRS onset to QRS offset), and (3) JTc (i.e., QTc interval minus QRS duration). Effect sizes were computed using Pearson’s r coefficients. The final sample (n=23) was 62±13 years of age and 70% male with LVEF of 34±10%. The mean QTc was 441±39 milliseconds, and 10 patients (43%) had prolonged QTc (≥450 milliseconds). QTc interval negatively correlated with cardiac output (r= -0.57), and positively correlated with systemic vascular resistance (r= +0.57), as well as thoracic fluid content (r= +0.43). QRS duration alone was not specifically associated with any hemodynamic parameter, but JTc interval positively correlated with total arterial compliance (r=+0.42). Conclusions: In heart failure patients, we interestingly found that increased systemic vascular resistance results in QTc interval prolongation, where repolarization time is specifically influenced by arterial compliance. This suggests potential benefit from antihypertensive therapy targeted at lowering systemic vascular resistance in those with prolonged QTc/JTc. Nevertheless, these intervals need to be interpreted with caution in patients with thoracic fluid overload (e.g., pulmonary edema).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".