Key result
Different methods to measure QRS duration yielded divergent nominal values and significantly influenced the predictive value for CRT response (AUC for ΔQRSD ranging from 0.540 to 0.858, P<0.05).
Why the study?
Does the method of measuring QRS duration impact its predictive value for CRT response in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Population
52 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), mean age 66 ± 12 years, 65% male.
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
The method used to measure QRS duration significantly influences its nominal value and its ability to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, highlighting the need for standardized global measurement methods.
Observational (n=52)
Does the method of measuring QRS duration impact its predictive value for CRT response in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Effect estimate: AUC ΔQRSD 0.540-0.858
p-value: p=<0.05
The method used to measure QRS duration significantly influences its nominal value and its ability to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, highlighting the need for standardized global measurement methods.
Pooter et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients (n=52). Different methods to measure QRS duration (global, lead-specific, automatic) was evaluated on Predictive value of QRS duration measurements for CRT response at 6 months (AUC ΔQRSD 0.540-0.858, p=<0.05). Different methods to measure QRS duration yielded divergent nominal values and significantly influenced the predictive value for CRT response (AUC for ΔQRSD ranging from 0.540 to 0.858, P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: