Relation of QT Interval Measurements to Evolving Automated Algorithms from Different Manufacturers of Electrocardiographs

QT-interval measurements have clinical importance for the electrocardiographic recognition of congenital and acquired heart disease and as markers of arrhythmogenic risk during drug therapy, but software algorithms for the automated measurement of electrocardiographic durations differ among manufact...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of cardiology Jg. 98; H. 1; S. 88 - 92
Hauptverfasser: Kligfield, Paul, Hancock, E. William, Helfenbein, Eric D., Dawson, Emilie J., Cook, Melynda A., Lindauer, James M., Zhou, Sophia H., Xue, Joel
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.07.2006
Elsevier
Elsevier Limited
Schlagworte:
Algorithms
Biological and medical sciences
Cardiac arrhythmia
Cardiology. Vascular system
Cardiovascular disease
Comparative studies
Electrocardiography
Electrocardiography - instrumentation
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Heart Rate - physiology
Humans
Medical prognosis
Medical sciences
Reaction Time
Regression Analysis
Software
Measurement
QT interval
Manufacturer
Circulatory system
Cardiology
Algorithm
Phlebology
ISSN:0002-9149, 1879-1913
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:QT-interval measurements have clinical importance for the electrocardiographic recognition of congenital and acquired heart disease and as markers of arrhythmogenic risk during drug therapy, but software algorithms for the automated measurement of electrocardiographic durations differ among manufacturers and evolve within manufacturers. To compare automated QT-interval measurements, simultaneous paired electrocardiograms were obtained in 218 subjects using digital recorders from the 2 major manufacturers of electrocardiographs used in the United States and analyzed by 2 currently used versions of each manufacturer’s software. The 4 automated QT and QTc durations were examined by repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc testing. Significantly larger automated QT-interval measurements were found with the most recent software of each manufacturer (12- to 24-ms mean differences from earlier algorithms). Systematic differences in QT measurements between manufacturers were significant for the earlier algorithms (11-ms mean difference) but not for the most recent software (1.3-ms mean difference). Similar relations were found for the rate-corrected QTc, with large mean differences between earlier and later algorithms (15 to 26 ms). Although there was a <2-ms mean difference between the most recent automated QTc measurements of the 2 manufacturers, the SD of the difference was 12 ms. In conclusion, reference values for automated electrocardiographic intervals and serial QT measurements vary among electrocardiographs and analysis software. Technically based differences in automated QT and QTc measurements must be considered when these intervals are used as markers of heart disease, prognosis, or arrhythmogenic risk.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.060