Key result
The automated QT-interval algorithm demonstrated excellent agreement with manual measurements, showing a mean difference of -0.38 ms and an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.981.
Why the study?
Does a novel automated QT-interval algorithm provide reliable beat-to-beat QT-interval assessment compared to manual measurement in patients with LQTS and healthy controls?
Observational (n=127)
Blinded observers
No
Does a novel automated QT-interval algorithm provide reliable beat-to-beat QT-interval assessment compared to manual measurement in patients with LQTS and healthy controls?
The developed automated QT-interval algorithm provides reliable beat-to-beat assessment comparable to manual measurements, remaining robust to changes in heart axis and T-wave morphology.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May improve beat-to-beat QT assessment amid variable T-wave morphologies; leaves open large-scale clinical validation.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate QT-interval dynamics in patients and in drug safety analysis, beat-to-beat QT-interval measurements are increasingly used. However, interobserver differences, aberrant T-wave morphologies and changes in heart axis might hamper accurate QT-interval measurements. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a QT-interval algorithm robust to heart axis orientation and T-wave morphology that can be applied on a beat-to-beat basis. METHODS: Additionally to standard ECG leads, the root mean square (ECGRMS), standard deviation and vectorcardiogram were used. QRS-onset was defined from the ECGRMS. T-wave end was defined per individual lead and scalar ECG using an automated tangent method. A median of all T-wave ends was used as the general T-wave end per beat. Supine-standing tests of 73 patients with Long-QT syndrome (LQTS) and 54 controls were used because they have wide ranges of RR and QT-intervals as well as changes in T-wave morphology and heart axis orientation. For each subject, automatically estimated QT-intervals in three random complexes chosen from the low, middle and high RR range, were compared with manually measured QT-intervals by three observers. RESULTS: After visual inspection of the randomly selected complexes, 21 complexes were excluded because of evident noise, too flat T-waves or premature ventricular beats. Bland-Altman analyses of automatically and manually determined QT-intervals showed a bias of <4ms and limits of agreement of ±25ms. Intra-class coefficient indicated excellent agreement (>0.9) between the algorithm and all observers individually as well as between the algorithm and the mean QT-interval of the observers. CONCLUSION: Our automated algorithm provides reliable beat-to-beat QT-interval assessment, robust to heart axis and T-wave morphology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hermans et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Long-QT syndrome (n=127). Automated QT-interval algorithm vs. Manual QT-interval measurements by independent observers was evaluated on Agreement between automatically and manually determined mean QT-intervals (QTalg vs. μQTobs) (ICC 0.981, 95% CI 0.976-0.984, p=<0.001). The automated QT-interval algorithm demonstrated excellent agreement with manual measurements, showing a mean difference of -0.38 ms and an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.981.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: