QT prolongation from psychiatric drugs is a real but imperfect risk marker; the arrhythmia itself is unmeasured
A Psychosomatics review: "There are no well-controlled studies that assess the risk of TdP associated with psychotropic agents." Citalopram is the SSRI most linked to QT prolongation, thioridazine the antipsychotic; most are low risk.
Weak or heavily disputed. Treat as a question, not an answer. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: A narrative review from 2013; the specific drug rankings could have shifted with later data, and the review itself says the comparative evidence is limited.
The interaction warnings about QT prolongation, which run through the citalopram, pimozide and paroxetine rows of this wave, rest on a marker, not on counted heart rhythm deaths. This review says so.
Significant findings
Beach and colleagues (Psychosomatics, 2013) reviewed the literature on the corrected QT interval and psychiatric medication. "QTc interval prolongation is an established, though imperfect, risk marker for TdP" (torsades de pointes, the dangerous rhythm). "There are no well-controlled studies that assess the risk of TdP associated with psychotropic agents."
What the evidence supports: "There are limited data that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as a class are linked to QTc prolongation; citalopram appears more likely than others to induce this phenomenon. Among antipsychotics, thioridazine remains the agent most associated with QTc prolongation; intravenous haloperidol also appears to carry an increased risk. Of the atypical antipsychotics, ziprasidone appears most likely to prolong the QTc interval."
And the proportion: "The majority of patients in need of psychotropic medications display few risk factors for QTc prolongation and should be considered to be at low risk for TdP. The frequency of cardiac monitoring for patients receiving psychiatric medications should be individually determined, based on the prescribed agent(s) and additional risk factors for TdP."
Worth asking
This is the review to hold beside the labels. The labels say avoid stacking QT drugs; the review says the stacking matters most for people who already have risk factors, such as heart disease, low potassium or magnesium, or a congenital long QT, and that the harm at the end of the chain has never been measured in a controlled study. If you take two drugs from the QT lists, the question is whether you have any of those risk factors and whether anyone has looked at an ECG.
Source
QTc prolongation, torsades de pointes, and psychotropic medications — Beach SR, Celano CM, Noseworthy PA, Januzzi JL, Huffman JC (2013)
Reputable peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2012.11.001
DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2012.11.001
How this was scored
- Study design
- Narrative review
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
- Published in
- Reputable peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published September 21, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "contested". Weak or heavily disputed. Treat as a question, not an answer. It scores 33 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: A narrative review from 2013; the specific drug rankings could have shifted with later data, and the review itself says the comparative evidence is limited. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
QTc prolongation, torsades de pointes, and psychotropic medications — Beach SR, Celano CM, Noseworthy PA, Januzzi JL, Huffman JC (2013). Published in: Reputable peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2012.11.001. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Narrative review. Funding: Funding not disclosed. Independence from the proponent is not recorded. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.