QT interval variability in body surface ECG: measurement, physiological basis, and clinical value: position statement and consensus guidance endorsed by the European Heart Rhythm Association jointly with the ESCWorking Group on Cardiac Cellular Electrophysiology

This consensus guideline discusses the electrocardiographic phenomenon of beat-to-beat QT interval variability (QTV) on surface electrocardiograms. The text covers measurement principles, physiological basis, and clinical value of QTV. Technical considerations include QT interval measurement and the relation between QTV and heart rate variability. Research frontiers of QTV include understanding of QTV physiology, systematic evaluation of the link between QTV and direct measures of neural activity, modelling of the QTV dependence on the variability of other physiological variables, distinction between QTV and general T wave shape variability, and assessing of the QTV utility for guiding therapy. Increased QTV appears to be a risk marker of arrhythmic and cardiovascular death. It remains to be established whether it can guide therapy alone or in combination with other risk factors. QT interval variability has a possible role in non-invasive assessment of tonic sympathetic activity

Role of continuous glucose monitoring in diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk. an expert-based multidisciplinary delphi consensus

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) shows in more detail the glycaemic pattern of diabetic subjects and provides several new parameters (“glucometrics”) to assess patients’ glycaemia and consensually guide treatment. A better control of glucose levels might result in improvement of clinical outcome and reduce disease complications. This study aimed to gather an expert consensus on the clinical and prognostic use of CGM in diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk or with heart disease. Methods: A list of 22 statements concerning type of patients who can benefit from CGM, prognostic impact of CGM in diabetic patients with heart disease, CGM use during acute cardiovascular events and educational issues of CGM were developed. Using a two-round Delphi methodology, the survey was distributed online to 42 Italian experts (21 diabetologists and 21 cardiologists) who rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as more than 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing with any given statement. Results: Forty experts (95%) answered the survey. Every statement achieved a positive consensus. In particular, the panel expressed the feeling that CGM can be prognostically relevant for every diabetic patient (70%) and that is clinically useful also in the management of those with type 2 diabetes not treated with insulin (87.5%). The assessment of time in range (TIR), glycaemic variability (GV) and hypoglycaemic/hyperglycaemic episodes were considered relevant in the management of diabetic patients with heart disease (92.5% for TIR, 95% for GV, 97.5% for time spent in hypoglycaemia) and can improve the prognosis of those with ischaemic heart disease (100% for hypoglycaemia, 90% for hyperglycaemia) or with heart failure (87.5% for hypoglycaemia, 85% for TIR, 87.5% for GV). The experts retained that CGM can be used and can impact the short- and long-term prognosis during an acute cardiovascular event. Lastly, CGM has a recognized educational role for diabetic subjects. Conclusions: According to this Delphi consensus, the clinical and prognostic use of CGM in diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk is promising and deserves dedicated studies to confirm the experts’ feeling