Key result
Manual QRSd assessment aligns with computer-calculated mean QRSd but shows poor concordance with maximal QRSd.
Why the study?
Patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and QRS duration ≥120 ms may benefit from CRT, but clinical trials do not describe methods for QRS duration measurement.
How accurate is manual QRS duration assessment compared to computer-calculated measurements for determining CRT eligibility?
Population
ECGs with computer-calculated mean QRS duration close to 120 ms assessed by 6 cardiologists
Comparison
Manual QRS duration assessment using various ECG display formats and paper speeds vs computer-calculated mean and maximal QRS duration
Design
Observational study assessing manual QRS duration measurement accuracy and variability
Authors
Loading...
Manual QRSd variability risks misclassifying CRT/ICD candidates; leaves open need for standardized measurement consensus.
Observational (n=6)
How accurate is manual QRS duration assessment compared to computer-calculated measurements for determining CRT eligibility?
Manual QRS duration assessment shows significant variability and poor concordance with computer-calculated maximal QRSd, highlighting the need for standardized measurement definitions for CRT selection.
Tomlinson et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Left ventricular systolic dysfunction (n=6). Manual QRS duration assessment vs. Computer-calculated QRS duration was evaluated on Concordance of manual QRSd with computer-calculated mean and maximal QRSd. Manual QRS duration assessment showed 97% and 83% concordance with computer-calculated mean QRSd for values <120 ms and ≥120 ms, but only 83% and 19% concordance with maximal QRSd.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: