1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Agreement and Reproducibility of Automatic Versus Manual Measurement of QT Interval and QT Dispersion

      , , , ,

      The American Journal of Cardiology

      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To determine whether the automatic measurement of the QT interval is consistent with the manual measurement, this study evaluated the reproducibility and agreement of both methods in 70 normal subjects and 54 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The mean, minimum, and maximum QT interval and QT dispersion were computed in a set of 6 consecutive electrocardiograms (3 in the supine and 3 in the standing position) obtained from each subject. The automatic method determined the T-wave end as the intersect of the least-squares-fit line around the tangent to the T-wave downslope with the isoelectric baseline. Manual measurements were obtained using a high-resolution digitizing board. QT dispersion was defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum QT interval and as standard deviations of the QT interval duration in all and precordial leads. In patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, the absolute values of the QT interval and QT dispersion were significantly higher than those in normal subjects (p < 0.0001). In both groups, the intrasubject variability of the QT interval was significantly lower with automatic than with manual measurement (p < 0.05). The agreement between automatic and manual QT interval measurements was surprisingly poor, but it was better in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (r2 = 0.46 to 0.67) than in normal subjects (r2 = 0.10 to 0.25). In both groups, the reproducibility and agreement of both methods for QT dispersion were significantly poorer than for QT interval. Hence, the automatic QT interval measurements are more stable and reproducible than manual measurement, but the lack of agreement between manual and automatic measurement suggests that clinical experience gained with manual assessment cannot be applied blindly to data obtained from the automatic systems.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The American Journal of Cardiology
          The American Journal of Cardiology
          Elsevier BV
          00029149
          February 1998
          February 1998
          : 81
          : 4
          : 471-477
          Article
          10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00927-2
          9485139
          365afbed-22d4-451b-8346-59fea5b78110
          © 1998

          Comments

          Comment on this article