MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414207671 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.413

Torsade de Pointes: How Much Do Psychotropics Really Contribute?

2025· article· en· W4414207671 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith Brouillette, Samuel Cyr, Céline Fiset, R. Tadros, Lobna M. Abdel‐Aziz, Anthony Minichiello, Michel Bouvier, Sylvie Lévesque, Charline Daval, Vivianne Lavigne, Paul Khairy, Stanley Nattel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcomitantAntidepressantGuidelinePolypharmacyAntipsychoticLogistic regressionQT intervalPopulationDefined daily dose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Based on potential risk of torsade de pointes (TdeP; a rare arrhythmia), regulatory agencies have issue warning for two specific antidepressants. This has translated in clinic as a class effect in that every antidepressant monography or guideline warns against this side effect. Current data suggest that excessive caution in the face of this undesirable effect could have a deleterious effect on mortality. Most research on antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs and TdeP is based on its intermediate marker, the corrected QT interval (QTc) on the electrocardiogram, or case reports. Objectives Our objective is to measure the contribution of psychotropic drugs (antidepressants and antipsychotics) to the arrhythmia itself, and measure its weight among all other risk factors. Methods We completed a retrospective case-control study at the Montreal Heart Institute, with a 1:3 ratio (n=440). We performed hierarchical logistic regression for TdeP (cases vs controls), and included the following independent variables: sex, age, hypokalemia, acute myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, hepatic failure and/or renal failure, other QTc-prolonging drugs, and psychotropic drugs. We then calculated population attributable risks (PAR). Results In our final model which adjust risk factors for one another, women, acute myocardial infarction, hypokalemia, left ventricular dysfunction, QTc-prolonging drugs, and use of ≥2 antidepressants were significantly associated with TdeP. Age, hepatic and/or renal failure and antidepressants/antipsychotic drug monotherapy were not. The PAR for use of ≥2 antidepressants was 6.3%, while those of other QTc-prolonging drugs, female sex, and left ventricular dysfunction were 55.1%, 41.8%, and 25.6%, respectively. Conclusions When adjusting for concomitant risk factors, monotherapy with antidepressant or antipsychotic drugs is not associated with TdeP. On its side, the use of ≥2 antidepressants is associated with TdeP, with a PAR of lesser magnitude than sex, left ventricular dysfunction, and other QTc-prolonging drugs. This research provides a more nuanced perspective on the relationship between psychotropic drugs and the occurrence of this arrhythmia. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207