Approximately 30% to 70% of patients with cirrhosis have QT interval prolongation. In patients without cirrhosis, QT prolongation is associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias, such as torsade de pointes (TdP). In cirrhotic patients, there is likely a significant association between the corrected QT (QTc) interval and the severity of liver disease, and possibly with increased mortality. We present a stepwise overview of the pathophysiology and management of acquired long QT syndrome in cirrhosis. The QT interval is mainly determined by ventricular repolarization. To compare the QT interval in time it should be corrected for heart rate (QTc), preferably by the Fridericia method. A QTc interval >450 ms in males and >470 ms in females is considered prolonged. The pathophysiological mechanism remains incompletely understood, but may include metabolic, autonomic or hormonal imbalances, cirrhotic heart failure and/or genetic predisposition. Additional external risk factors for QTc prolongation include medication (I Kr blockade and altered cytochrome P450 activity), bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, underlying cardiomyopathy and acute illness. In patients with cirrhosis, multiple hits and cardiac-hepatic interactions are often required to sufficiently erode the repolarization reserve before long QT syndrome and TdP can occur. While some risk factors are unavoidable, overall risk can be mitigated by electrocardiogram monitoring and avoiding drug interactions and electrolyte and acidbase disturbances. In cirrhotic patients with prolonged QTc interval, a joint effort by cardiologists and hepatologists may be useful and significantly improve the clinical course and outcome.

BACKGROUND: People with the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS), a group of heritable disorders of connective tissue, often report experiencing dental procedure pain despite local anesthetic (LA) use. Clinicians have been uncertain how to interpret this apparent LA resistance, as comparison of EDS and non-EDS patient experience is limited to anecdotal evidence and small case series. The primary goal of this hypothesis-generating study was to investigate the recalled adequacy of pain prevention with LA administered during dental procedures in a large cohort of people with and without EDS. A secondary exploratory aim asked people with EDS to recall comparative LA experiences. METHODS: We administered an online survey through various social media platforms to people with EDS and their friends without EDS, asking about past dental procedures, LA exposures, and the adequacy of procedure pain prevention. Among EDS respondents who both received LA and recalled the specific LA used, we compared agent-specific pain prevention for lidocaine, procaine, bupivacaine, mepivacaine, and articaine. RESULTS: Among the 980 EDS respondents who had undergone a dental procedure LA, 88% (n = 860) recalled inadequate pain prevention. Among 249 non EDS respondents only 33% (n = 83) recalled inadequate pain prevention (P < 0.001 compared to EDS respondents). The agent with the highest EDS-respondent reported success rate was articaine (30%), followed by bupivacaine (25%), and mepivacaine (22%). CONCLUSIONS: EDS survey respondents reported nearly three times the rate of LA non-response compared to non-EDS respondents, suggesting that LAs were less effective in preventing their pain associated with routine office dental procedures.
Anesthesia, Local ; Anesthetics, Local ; Bupivacaine ; Carticaine ; Cohort Studies ; Connective Tissue ; Dental Care ; Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome ; Friends ; Humans ; Lidocaine ; Mepivacaine ; Procaine ; Social Media ; Surveys and Questionnaires