Comparison of methods for correcting QT interval in athletes and young people: A systematic review

Abstract

Screening elite athletes for conditions associated with sudden cardiac death is recommended by numerous international guidelines. Current athlete electrocardiogram interpretation criteria recommend the Bazett formula (QTcB) for correcting QT interval. However, other formulae may perform better at lower and higher heart rates (HR). This review aimed to examine the literature on various QT correction methods in athletes and young people aged 14−35 years and determine the most accurate method of calculating QTc in this population. A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and SportDiscus was performed. Papers comparing at least two different methods of QT interval correction in athletes or young people were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using a standardized tool. The search strategy identified 545 papers, of which 10 met the criteria and were included. Nine of these studies concluded that QTcB was least reliable for removing the effect of HR and was inaccurate at both high (>90 beats per min [BPM]) and low (<60 BPM) HRs. No studies supported the use of QTcB in athletes and young people. Alternative QT correction algorithms such as Fridericia (QTcF) produce more accurate correction of QT interval at HRs seen in athletes and young people. QTcB is less accurate at lower and higher HRs. QTcF has been shown to be more accurate in these HR ranges and may be preferred to QTcB for QTc calculation in athletes and young people. However, accurate QTc reference values for discrete HRs using alternative algorithms are not well established and require further research.