ArticleCJC open2020
The Clinical Utility of Continuous QT Interval Monitoring in Patients Admitted With COVID-19 Compared With Standard of Care: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in CJC open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQT interval monitoring has gained much interest during the COVID-19 pandemic because of the use of QT-prolonging medications and the concern about viral transmission with serial electrocardiograms (ECGs). We hypothesized that continuous telemetry-based QT monitoring is associated with better detection of prolonged QT episodes.
methodsWe introduced continuous cardiac telemetry (CCT) with an algorithm for automated QT interval monitoring to our designated COVID-19 units. The daily maximum automated heart rate-corrected QT (Auto-QTc) measurements were recorded. We compared the proportion of marked QTc prolongation (Long-QTc) episodes, defined as QTc ≥ 500 ms, in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted before and after CCT was implemented (control group vs CCT group, respectively). Manual QTc measurement by electrophysiologists was used to verify Auto-QTc. Charts were reviewed to describe the clinical response to Long-QTc episodes.
resultsWe included 33 consecutive patients (total of 451 monitoring days). Long-QTc episodes were detected more frequently in the CCT group (69/206 [34%] vs 26/245 [11%];
conclusionsContinuous QT interval monitoring is superior to standard of care in detecting episodes of Long-QTc with minimal need for ECGs. The clinical response to Long-QTc episodes is suboptimal.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.