Key result
Fridericia formula provides superior QTc calculation in diabetes while automated machine readings match worst-performing Bazett's.
Why the study?
Little or no literature existed comparing various QTc calculation formulae in patients living with diabetes, particularly those with HIV infection.
Does the Fridericia or Framingham formula improve QTc calculation accuracy compared to Bazett's formula in adult diabetic patients with or without HIV?
Observational (n=631)
No
Does the Fridericia or Framingham formula improve QTc calculation accuracy compared to Bazett's formula in adult diabetic patients with or without HIV?
The Fridericia formula is superior to the commonly used Bazett's formula for calculating the QTc interval in diabetic patients, highlighting the need for careful formula selection to improve diagnostic precision.
Fridericia may improve QTc accuracy in diabetes; leaves open whether formula choice affects outcomes or warrants practice change.
Background: A prolonged corrected QT (QTc) interval on the electrocardiograph is an important marker of cardiac autonomic neuropathy and increased risk of developing arrhythmias. Various formulae exist for the calculation of QTc, the most common being Bazett’s, which is also the default formula utilised by the Edan SE® ECG machine to automatically calculate QTc. Little or no literature exists on the comparisons of the various formulae in patients living with diabetes, more especially in those diabetes patients with HIV infection.Methods: Retrospective (n = 631) electrocardiographs were collected and analysed. QT and RR were measured for QTc calculation. QTc was calculated using three formulae, namely Bazett (QTcB), Fridericia (QTcFri) and Framingham (QTcFram). Additionally, the automated QTc (QTcM), which used Bazett’s formula, was recorded for comparison purposes. To determine the optimal formula for QTc calculation, slopes and r2 using a QTc/RR regression analysis were calculated. The formula with the r2 closest to zero was deemed superior when compared with its counterparts.Results: The QTc Bazett was the worst-performing formula for QTc calculation, with the QTcFri performing best across both type 2 and type 1 diabetes patients with or without HIV infection. To validate which formula was employed in the automated QTc result, a mean difference comparison was performed, which indicated a non-significant difference between the machine-calculated QTcM and QTcB (p = 0.572, 0.384, 0.980) in all groups except for the type 1 diabetic group without HIV (p = 0.009). These findings indicated that the automated QTc employed Bazett’s formula.Conclusion: Evidence from this study has shown that the best formula to calculate QTc in patients with DM, with and without HIV infection, is the Fridericia formula. The authors advise that careful consideration should be taken when selecting a formula for QTc calculation. This will improve precision diagnosis and patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mkhwanazi et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Diabetes with or without HIV infection (n=631). Fridericia and Framingham formulae vs. Bazett's formula and automated QTc was evaluated on Optimal formula for QTc calculation (r2 closest to zero in QTc/RR regression analysis). The Fridericia formula was superior for QTc calculation in diabetes patients, while automated machine QTc matched the worst-performing Bazett's formula in most groups (p=0.572, 0.384, 0.980).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: