Key result
Assessment of atrioventricular duration using the P-peak to R-peak interval correlated well with the conventional PR-interval (r=0.67 at 15 Hz filtering), providing accurate inter-beat variation.
Why the study?
Does the PR-peaks method provide accurate and precise measurement of dynamic beat-to-beat atrioventricular duration variability compared to the conventional PR-interval method in healthy sedentary and elite runner males?
Population
16 males (8 healthy sedentary and 8 elite runners, age, weight and height adjusted)
Comparison
Measurement of atrioventricular duration using… vs Conventional PR-interval measurement
Design
Cross-sectional
Follow-up
15 min resting ECG recording
Authors
Loading...
PR-peaks method supports accurate AV duration assessment in healthy males; hypothesis-generating for clinical use pending prospective validation.
Observational (n=16)
Does the PR-peaks method provide accurate and precise measurement of dynamic beat-to-beat atrioventricular duration variability compared to the conventional PR-interval method in healthy sedentary and elite runner males?
Effect estimate: r=0.67, 0.59, and 0.50
The PR-peaks method provides an accurate and precise alternative to the conventional PR-interval for assessing physiological inter-beat atrioventricular duration variation.
Nasario‐Junior et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Healthy sedentary and elite runners (n=16). PR-peaks method (P-peak to R-peak interval) vs. Conventional PR-interval (P-onset to QRS-onset) was evaluated on Correlation coefficient (r) for PR-interval versus PR-peaks at 15 Hz, 25 Hz, and 35 Hz filtering (r=0.67, 0.59, and 0.50). Assessment of atrioventricular duration using the P-peak to R-peak interval correlated well with the conventional PR-interval (r=0.67 at 15 Hz filtering), providing accurate inter-beat variation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: