| Literature DB >> 25229724 |
Motoaki Sano1, Yoshiyasu Aizawa1, Yoshinori Katsumata1, Nobuhiro Nishiyama1, Seiji Takatsuki1, Shigeo Kamitsuji2, Naoyuki Kamatani2, Keiichi Fukuda1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automatic measurement becomes a preference, and indeed a necessity, when analyzing 1000 s of ECGs in the setting of either drug-inducing QT prolongation screening or genome-wide association studies of QT interval. The problem is that individual manufacturers apply different computerized algorithms to measure QT interval. We conducted a comparative study to assess the outcomes with different automated measurements of QT interval between ECG machine manufacturers and validated the related heart rate correction methods. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25229724 PMCID: PMC4167700 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106947
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Analysis of resting Fukuda Denshi ECGs.
(A) Histograms of QT, log-transformed QT, RR, and log-transformed RR intervals. (B) Scatter plots of log QT versus log RR and log QTc_ours log versus log RR. (C) QT versus RR and QTc_ours raw versus RR. Units of all variables are ms.
Figure 2Analysis of resting Nihon Kohden ECGs.
(A) Histograms of QT, log-transformed QT, RR, and log-transformed RR intervals. (B) Scatter plots of log QT versus log RR and log QTc_ours log versus log RR. (C) QT versus RR and QTc_ours raw versus RR. Units of all variables are ms.
Comparison of automatic QT measurements in adult resting ECGs between Fukuda Denshi and Nihon Kohden.
| gendernumberage | QT | RR | QTc (log) | QTc (raw) | ||
| study | statistic | study | statistic | |||
| Nihon Kohden | ||||||
| corrected coefficient: 0.347 | corrected coefficient: 0.152 | |||||
| male42,67349.9±15.3 | 404.0±28.4 | 947.6±151.2 | Ours | 412.9±17.8 | Ours | 412.3±17.4 |
| Fredericia | 412.5±17.8 | Framingham | 412.2±17.4 | |||
| Bazett | 417.2±20.8 | ECAPs12 | 411.6±17.4 | |||
| female30,08153.6±16.5 | 406.4±27.3 | 922.6±133.4 | Ours | 418.8±17.4 | Ours | 418.4±17.1 |
| Fredericia | 418.3±17.5 | Framingham | 418.2±17.1 | |||
| Bazett | 424.8±19.6 | ECAPs12 | 417.4±17.2 | |||
| Fukuda Denshi | ||||||
| corrected coefficient: 0.347 | corrected coefficient: 0.156 | |||||
| male8,63146.1±9.2 | 378.6±25.7 | 859.7±132.8 | Ours | 400.1±16.8 | Ours | 400.5±15.9 |
| Fredericia | 399.2±17.7 | Framingham | 400.2±15.9 | |||
| Bazett | 410.3±20.0 | ECAPs12 | 398.6±15.9 | |||
| female1,89845.3±7.9 | 388.1±26.2 | 876.5±123.3 | Ours | 407.2±17.7 | Ours | 407.3±16.8 |
| Fredericia | 406.4±17.7 | Framingham | 407.0±16.9 | |||
| Bazett | 416.1±19.7 | ECAPs12 | 405.6±17.0 | |||
Units of RR, QT and all corrected forms of QT in this table are ms.
The results of the tests of differences in QT, RR, QTc(ours_log), Fredericia, Bazett, QTc(ours_raw), Framingham and ECAPs12 between Nihon Koden and Fukuda Denshi for each gender were all P<2.2×10−16 (Student t-test).