Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,072

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevalence of the Congenital Long-QT Syndrome

Open access
Schwartz, Peter J., Stramba-Badiale, Marco, Crotti, Lia, Pedrazzini, Matteo, Besana, Alessandra, Bosi, Giuliano, Gabbarini, Fulvio, Goulene, Karine, Insolia, Roberto, Mannarino, Savina, Mosca, Fabio, Nespoli, Luigi, Rimini, Alessandro, Rosati, Enrico, Salice, Patrizia, Spazzolini, Carla·2009·Circulation

Abstract

Background— The prevalence of genetic arrhythmogenic diseases is unknown. For the long-QT syndrome (LQTS), figures ranging from 1:20 000 to 1:5000 were published, but none was based on actual data. Our objective was to define the prevalence of LQTS. Methods and Results— In 18 maternity hospitals, an ECG was performed in 44 596 infants 15 to 25 days old (43 080 whites). In infants with a corrected QT interval (QTc) >450 ms, the ECG was repeated within 1 to 2 weeks. Genetic analysis, by screening 7 LQTS genes, was performed in 28 of 31 (90%) and in 14 of 28 infants (50%) with, respectively, a QTc >470 ms or between 461 and 470 ms. A QTc of 451 to 460, 461 to 470, and >470 ms was observed in 177 (0.41%), 28 (0.06%), and 31 infants (0.07%). Among genotyped infants, disease-causing mutations were found in 12 of 28 (43%) with a QTc >470 ms and in 4 of 14 (29%) with a QTc of 461 to 470 ms. One genotype-negative infant (QTc 482 ms) was diagnosed as affected by LQTS on clinical grounds. Among family members of genotype-positive infants, 51% were found to carry disease-causing mutations. In total, 17 of 43 080 white infants were affected by LQTS, demonstrating a prevalence of at least 1:2534 apparently healthy live births (95% confidence interval, 1:1583 to 1:4350). Conclusions— This study provides the first data-based estimate of the prevalence of LQTS among whites. On the basis of the nongenotyped infants with QTc between 451 and 470 ms, we advance the hypothesis that this prevalence might be close to 1:2000. ECG-guided molecular screening can identify most infants affected by LQTS and unmask affected relatives, thus allowing effective preventive measures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.109.863209

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Schwartz, P. J., Stramba-Badiale, M., Crotti, L., Pedrazzini, M., Besana, A., Bosi, G., Gabbarini, F., Goulene, K., Insolia, R., Mannarino, S., Mosca, F., Nespoli, L., Rimini, A., Rosati, E., Salice, P., & Spazzolini, C.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-11-03
Volume
120
Issue
18
Pages
1761-1767
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2035747740
Cited by
1,072
References
0
FWCI
28.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.