ABSTRACT
No reports testing the efficacy of the use of the QT/RR ratio <1/2 for detecting a normal QTc interval were found in the literature. The objective of the present study was to determine if a QT/RR ratio <=1/2 can be considered to be equal to the normal QTc and to compare the QT and QTc measured and calculated clinically and by a computerized electrocardiograph. Ratios (140 QT/RR) of 28 successive electrocardiograms obtained from 28 consecutive patients in a tertiary level teaching hospital were analyzed clinically by 5 independent observers and by a computerized electrocardiograph. The QT/RR ratio provided 56 percent sensitivity and 78 percent specificity, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 75.8 percent (95 percentCI: 0.68 to 0.84). The divergence in QT and QTc interval measurements between clinical and computerized evaluation were 0.01 ± 0.03 s (95 percentCI: 0.04-0.02) and 0.01 ± 0.04 s (95 percentCI: -0.05-0.03), respectively. The QT and QTc values measured clinically and by a computerized electrocardiograph were similar. The QT/RR ratio <=1/2 was not a satisfactory index for QTc evaluation because it could not predict a normal QTc value.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Arrhythmias, Cardiac , Electrocardiography , Heart Rate , Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , ROC Curve , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
No reports testing the efficacy of the use of the QT/RR ratio <1/2 for detecting a normal QTc interval were found in the literature. The objective of the present study was to determine if a QT/RR ratio < or =1/2 can be considered to be equal to the normal QTc and to compare the QT and QTc measured and calculated clinically and by a computerized electrocardiograph. Ratios (140 QT/RR) of 28 successive electrocardiograms obtained from 28 consecutive patients in a tertiary level teaching hospital were analyzed clinically by 5 independent observers and by a computerized electrocardiograph. The QT/RR ratio provided 56% sensitivity and 78% specificity, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 75.8% (95%CI: 0.68 to 0.84). The divergence in QT and QTc interval measurements between clinical and computerized evaluation were 0.01 +/- 0.03 s (95%CI: 0.04-0.02) and 0.01 +/- 0.04 s (95%CI: -0.05-0.03), respectively. The QT and QTc values measured clinically and by a computerized electrocardiograph were similar. The QT/RR ratio < or =1/2 was not a satisfactory index for QTc evaluation because it could not predict a normal QTc value.
