Key result
Automated QTc determination by cardiac telemetry had poor agreement but acceptable diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.9, P<0.001) for detecting prolonged QT compared with electrocardiography.
Why the study?
QT prolongation is common and increases ventricular arrhythmia risk in critically ill patients, but automated telemetry-derived QTc has not been compared with standard electrocardiography in this population.
Does automated measurement of QTc by cardiac telemetry accurately diagnose QT prolongation compared to electrocardiography in critically ill patients?
Observational (n=43)
Does automated measurement of QTc by cardiac telemetry accurately diagnose QT prolongation compared to electrocardiography in critically ill patients?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.9
p-value: p=< .001
Automated QTc measurement by cardiac telemetry shows poor agreement with standard electrocardiography in critically ill patients and should be used with caution.
Telemetry QTc warrants caution in critically ill patients; leaves open whether refined algorithms improve ECG agreement.
BACKGROUND: QT prolongation increases the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and is common among critically ill patients. The gold standard for QT measurement is electrocardiography. Automated measurement of corrected QT (QTc) by cardiac telemetry has been developed, but this method has not been compared with electrocardiography in critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of QTc values obtained with cardiac telemetry versus electrocardiography. METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients admitted to intensive care who had an electrocardiogram ordered simultaneously with cardiac telemetry. Demographic data and QTc determined by electrocardiography and telemetry were recorded. Bland-Altman analysis was done, and correlation coefficient and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) coefficient were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-one data points were obtained from 43 patients (65% men). Bland-Altman analysis revealed poor agreement between telemetry and electrocardiography and evidence of fixed and proportional bias. Area under the ROC curve for QTc determined by telemetry was 0.9 (P < .001) for a definition of prolonged QT as QTc ≥ 450 milliseconds in electrocardiography (sensitivity, 88.89%; specificity, 83.33%; cutoff of 464 milliseconds used). Correlation between the 2 methods was only moderate (r = 0.6, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: QTc determination by telemetry has poor agreement and moderate correlation with electrocardiography. However, telemetry has an acceptable area under the curve in ROC analysis with tolerable sensitivity and specificity depending on the cutoff used to define prolonged QT. Cardiac telemetry should be used with caution in critically ill patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Calvo-Ayala et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Critically ill patients (n=43). Automated measurement of corrected QT (QTc) by cardiac telemetry vs. Electrocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic performance of QTc values (agreement, correlation, and ROC AUC for prolonged QT) (AUC 0.9, p=< .001). Automated QTc determination by cardiac telemetry had poor agreement but acceptable diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.9, P<0.001) for detecting prolonged QT compared with electrocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: