A microcomputer-based system provides more consistent measurements of action potential duration compared to manual methods without systematic differences.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computer methods yield more consistent action potential duration measures in animals without bias; leaves open clinical translation.
Measurement of action potential duration is made more valuable if it can be made simultaneously with other variables, to which it may be related. We have developed a microcomputer-based system which allows measurement of action potential duration, both for transmembrane action potentials and for monophasic action potentials. The system allows simultaneous recording and analysis of action potentials and intraventricular pressures. Both end-diastolic and maximum systolic pressures have been analysed. Action potential duration was assessed at four different levels of the repolarization curve. We have analysed the consistency of measurements made by the computer, and compared them to measurements made manually, using results from six dog experiments. For action potential duration, there was no systematic difference between the manual and the computer methods, but the computer was significantly more consistent. In the case of the pressure measurements, the two methods were approximately the same in their consistency, and again there was no systematic difference. We have demonstrated that potential errors in determination of the average diastolic potential did not significantly affect the results obtained by our method. The variances of action potential duration measurements made at different levels of repolarization were equal. We demonstrated that there was no effect of amplitude on the action potential duration of potentials recorded under steady-state conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coulshed et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: