Objective
Incidences of drug abuse and synthetic cannabinoid have increased in young population, recently. One of those illicit synthetic cannabinoid is Bonsai. Recently, it has been the most popular one due its high potential to cause sudden death. However it has not been clarified how sudden cardiac death among young subjects developed. The aim of this study was to assess and demonstrate the abnormalities of P wave, QT interval and Tpeak-Tend (Tp-Te) in young bonsai abusers.
Methods
Medical recordings of 77 young bonsai abusers and 33 age and gender matched healthy young subjects as control group were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or valvular heart disease and those on medications that interfere with cardiac conduction times were excluded. ECGs recordings were digitally analyzed. QT interval was measured from the initiation of QRS to end of T wave and corrected according to actual heart rate by using Bazett’s formula. Differences beween the maximum and minimum duration of P wave, QT and QTc interval were assigned as P wave dispertion (Pwd), QT dispertion (QTd), and QTc dispertion (QTcd), Tp-Te interval, Tp-Te /QT ratio, Tp-Te /QTc ratio respectively. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0
Results
Pwd (52,32±8,84 vs. 44,13±5,60 ms, <0.001) and PR interval (169,64±18,51 vs 148,51±14,9, <0.001) significantly increased in young bonsai users. Additionally, QTc (420,92±23,06 vs. 403,72±19,73 ms, p<0.001), QTc dispersion (63,62±9,73 vs. 42,13±4,27 ms, <0.001) and QT dispersion (56,10±8,47 vs. 45,10±3,68 ms, <0.001) were significantly increased in young bonsai users compared to control group. Tp-Te interval, Tp-Te/QT ratio, and Tp-Te/QTc ratio in patients with bonsai use significantly increased compared to control group (100,92±9.88 vs. 83,14±8.28 ms, 0,27±0.03 vs. 0,23±0.02 ms, and 0,24±0.02 vs. 0,21±0.02 ms respectively; p<0.001) Tp-Te dispersion, Tp-Te/QTc dispersion in patients with bonsai use significantly increased compared to control group (46,09±5.47 vs. 33,22±4.90 ms, and 1,61±0.24 vs. 2,00±0.35 ms, respectively; p<0.001) (Table I)
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
