Why the study?
Do new analysis methods based on pathophysiology improve the accuracy of QRS duration measurement using HRECG and invasive electrograms compared to prior operational definitions?
Do new analysis methods based on pathophysiology improve the accuracy of QRS duration measurement using HRECG and invasive electrograms compared to prior operational definitions?
New analysis methods based on pathophysiology rather than operational definitions can eliminate outliers and improve the accuracy of QRS duration measurements using HRECG.
High resolution electrocardiography (HRECG) and invasive electrogram recording methods are used for the measurement of total ventricular activation time. Prior studies showed good correlation when comparing the two methods, but had a significant number of outliers in their data. From the results of this study it is concluded that these prior studies may have systematically underestimated QRS duration with both recording technologies, thus accounting for the good correlation. This study eliminated outliers resulting from underestimation in QRS duration on the body surface by extending the analysis methods away from operational definition and toward the underlying pathophysiology as the basis for data analysis.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berbari et al. (2002) studied Late potentials. Pathophysiology-based analysis of HRECG vs. Operational definition-based analysis was evaluated on QRS duration / total ventricular activation time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: