Prolonged QT Interval in Cirrhosis: Twisting Time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 30% to 70% of patients with cirrhosis have QT interval prolongation.In patients without cirrhosis, QT prolongation is associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias, such as torsade de pointes (TdP).In cirrhotic patients, there is likely a significant association between the corrected QT (QTc) interval and the severity of liver disease, and possibly with increased mortality.We present a stepwise overview of the pathophysiology and management of acquired long QT syndrome in cirrhosis.The QT interval is mainly determined by ventricular repolarization.To compare the QT interval in time it should be corrected for heart rate (QTc), preferably by the Fridericia method.A QTc interval >450 ms in males and >470 ms in females is considered prolonged.The pathophysiological mechanism remains incompletely understood, but may include metabolic, autonomic or hormonal imbalances, cirrhotic heart failure and/or genetic predisposition.Additional external risk factors for QTc prolongation include medication (I Kr blockade and altered cytochrome P450 activity), bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, underlying cardiomyopathy and acute illness.In patients with cirrhosis, multiple hits and cardiac-hepatic interactions are often required to sufficiently erode the repolarization reserve before long QT syndrome and TdP can occur.While some risk factors are unavoidable, overall risk can be mitigated by electrocardiogram monitoring and avoiding drug interactions and electrolyte and acidbase disturbances.In cirrhotic patients with prolonged QTc interval, a joint effort by cardiologists and hepatologists may be useful and significantly improve the clinical course and outcome.(Gut Liver, Published online
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".