MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414513016 · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06418-2

Prevalence of the QT interval prolongation and its risk factors in hospitalized geriatric patients: findings of a single center cross-sectional study in Pakistan

2025· article· en· W4414513016 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Junaid Hassan Sharif, Muhammad Mamoon Iqbal, Ayesha Iqbal, Qasim Raza Khan, Muhammad Zeeshan Haroon, Adel Bashatah, Wajid Syed, Naji Alqahtani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsTorsades de pointesQT intervalPolypharmacyProlongationLogistic regressionDiabetes mellitusOdds ratioRisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Geriatric inpatients are particularly susceptible to Torsades de Pointes (TdP) because they are usually polymorbid and often take QT-prolonging drugs. Since polypharmacy is common in hospitalized geriatrics, it may lead to QT-prolonging Drug-Drug interactions, resulting in adverse cardiac events. Additionally, a significant portion of geriatric patients likely have a combination of other risk factors such as heart failure, hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, bradycardia, diabetes mellitus, and electrolyte imbalances. However, there is a lack of published data regarding the prevalence of risk factors for QT interval prolongation in this population. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of QT interval prolongation and its risk factors among hospitalized geriatric patients, shedding light on potential contributors to this life-threatening condition in a vulnerable population. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad from December 17, 2023, to May 9, 2024. During this study, 384 patients aged 65 years and older were analyzed. Various QT-prolonging medications were assessed using the CredibleMeds® database, while drug-drug interactions were evaluated using the Lexicomp interactions database. Logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of QT interval prolongation. RESULTS: Our study found that QT prolongation was more common in females (50.8%) than in males (49.2%). Among these patients, 60.2% presented with six QT-prolonging risk factors. Overall, QT-prolonging drugs were prescribed to 99.5% of patients. A total of 970 QT-prolonging drugs were identified, with the majority (70.4%) carrying a conditional risk of Torsades de Pointes. The most frequently prescribed category of QT-prolonging drugs was diuretics, accounting for 228 instances. QT-prolonging Drug-Drug Interactions were identified in 23.2% of patients. Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups (Prolonged QT interval vs. normal QT interval) in various factors such as all DDIs (p = 0.008), triglycerides (p = 0.03), ischemic heart disease (p = 0.02), myocardial infarction (p = 0.01), antimicrobials (p = 0.004), anti-emetics (p = 0.01), and analgesics (p = 0.05). Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant association of QT interval prolongation with 6–10 DDIs (p = 0.03); 11–15 DDIs (p = 0.001), > 15 DDIs (p = 0.01), ischemic heart disease (p = 0.02), myocardial infarction (p = 0.01), antimicrobials (p = 0.04), and antiemetic’s (p = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, a statistically significant association of QT interval prolongation was found with 11–15 DDIs (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study identified a high prevalence of various risk factors for QT interval prolongation. When prescribing medications to this patient population, clinicians should conduct comprehensive medication reviews, regularly monitor the QT interval, and consider alternative therapies. Educating patients on medication risks and adherence to monitoring is crucial for early detection and reporting of adverse effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207