Jump to content


Photo

QT vs. QTc


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Marnie

Marnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 396 posts

Posted 22 December 2010 - 04:24 PM

So I think that MAYBE I have this figured out.  When determining risk for QT prolongation, you would look at the QTc value, rather than the QT value.  My numbers were 484/418.  Risk for females is above 450.  Since my QTc is 418, I'm probably o.k.  Because I have "marked sinus bradycardia" that would probably account for the very high QT value.  I assume the very slow heart rate is due to excessive training throughout highschool/college as a long-distance runner/marathoner.  This could also explain the occassional dizziness/fainting episodes I've experience in the past.  Hmmm. . .wish I'd have known about this sooner.

Did I get this right, Trey?  Or is the 484 a concern?

Marnie



#2 Trey

Trey

    Advanced Member

  • PS Beta Group
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:22 PM

You are right, Q-T.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users