Key result
Smartphone single-lead ECG accurately measures QTc interval versus 12-lead ECG with ~1 ms difference.
Why the study?
The accuracy of QT measurement using a smartphone-operated single-lead ECG device needed to be determined.
Does a smartphone-operated single-lead ECG accurately measure the QT interval compared to a standard 12-lead ECG in primary care patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=125)
Blinded
Does a smartphone-operated single-lead ECG accurately measure the QT interval compared to a standard 12-lead ECG in primary care patients?
Effect estimate: Mean difference 1 ms
Absolute Event Rate: 393% vs 392%
p-value: p=0.51
A smartphone-operated single-lead ECG provides clinically acceptable QTc interval measurements compared to a standard 12-lead ECG, offering a potential tool for monitoring QTc-prolonging medications in primary care.
Offers convenient QTc monitoring option in primary care; leaves open prospective validation before routine use.
Objective To determine the accuracy of QT measurement in a smartphone-operated, single-lead ECG (1L-ECG) device (AliveCor KardiaMobile 1L). Design Cross-sectional, within-patient diagnostic validation study. Setting/participants Patients underwent a 12-lead ECG (12L-ECG) for any non-acute indication in primary care, April 2017–July 2018. Intervention Simultaneous recording of 1L-ECGs and 12L-ECGs with blinded manual QT assessment. Outcomes of interest (1) Difference in QT interval in milliseconds (ms) between the devices; (2) measurement agreement between the devices (excellent agreement <20 ms and clinically acceptable agreement <40 ms absolute difference); (3) sensitivity and specificity for detection of extreme QTc (short (≤340 ms) or long (≥480 ms)), on 1L-ECGs versus 12L-ECGs as reference standard. In case of significant discrepancy between lead I/II of 12L-ECGs and 1L-ECGs, we developed a correction tool by adding the difference between QT measurements of 12L-ECG and 1L-ECGs. Results 250 ECGs of 125 patients were included. The mean QTc interval, using Bazett’s formula (QTcB), was 393±25 ms (mean±SD) in 1L-ECGs and 392±27 ms in lead I of 12L-ECGs, a mean difference of 1±21 ms, which was not statistically different (paired t-test (p=0.51) and Bland Altman method (p=0.23)). In terms of agreement between 1L-ECGs and lead I, QTcB had excellent agreement in 66.9% and clinically acceptable agreement in 93.4% of observations. The sensitivity and specificity of detecting extreme QTc were 0% and 99.2%, respectively. The comparison of 1L-ECG QTcB with lead II of 12L-ECGs showed a significant difference (p=<0.01), but when using a correction factor (+9 ms) this difference was cancelled (paired t-test (p=0.43) or Bland Altman test (p=0.57)). Moreover, it led to improved rates of excellent (71.3%) and clinically acceptable (94.3%) agreement. Conclusion Smartphone-operated 1L-ECGs can be used to accurately measure the QTc interval compared with simultaneously obtained 12L-ECGs in a primary care population. This may provide an opportunity for monitoring the effects of potential QTc-prolonging medications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beers et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Non-acute indication for ECG (n=125). Smartphone-operated single-lead ECG (AliveCor KardiaMobile 1L) vs. 12-lead ECG was evaluated on Difference in QTc interval (Bazett's formula) between 1L-ECG and lead I of 12L-ECG (Mean difference 1 ms, p=0.51). Smartphone-operated single-lead ECG accurately measured the QTc interval compared with 12-lead ECG lead I, showing a non-significant mean difference of 1 ms (p=0.51).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: