Key result
Automated interval timer matches manual measurement with ~99% correlation and high diagnostic accuracy.
Why the study?
Accurate and real-time measurement of cardiac electrophysiologic intervals during invasive testing is needed for routine and research use.
Observational (n=10)
May support automated interval timing in electrophysiology; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
A microprocessor-based timer has been developed for routine and research use in cardiac electrophysiologic studies. The cycle length (A-A) and the conduction times through the right atrium (A(HRA)-A(HIS], the AV node (A-H) and the His-Purkinje system (H-V) can be automatically measured beat-to-beat in real-time both during sinus rhythm and during atrial pacing. The design has been refined during three years of use in over 80 clinical studies. A comparison between manual and automatic measurements has been executed for randomly chosen portions of 10 studies. With the manual measurements as reference procedures the sensitivities of the automatic measurements of the A, H and V waves were 0.98, 0.88 and 0.92, respectively, while the specificities were 0.93, 0.92 and 0.93, respectively. For the true positive measurements the correlation coefficients of the intervals were r(A-A) = 0.9998, r(A-H) = 0.987 and r(H-V) = 0.988. The statistical analysis of the differences between manual and automatic readings for the intervals A-A, A-H and H-V yielded mean values of -1 ms, -0.8 ms and 0.6 ms and standard deviations of 3 ms, 4 ms and 4 ms which are smaller than the accuracy of the common manual measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Antolini et al. (1988) conducted an observational in Cardiac electrophysiologic testing (n=10). Automatic microprocessor-based timer measurement vs. Manual measurements was evaluated on Sensitivity, specificity, and correlation of A, H, and V wave measurements. An automatic microprocessor-based timer for interval measurement demonstrated high sensitivities (0.88-0.98), specificities (0.92-0.93), and correlation (r≥0.987) compared to manual measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: