Vlastimil Vancura1,2, Dan Wichterle2,3, Ivan Ulc1, Jirí Šmíd1, Marek Brabec4,5, Marta Zárybnická6, Richard Rokyta1. 1. Cardiology Department, Complex Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic. 2. Department of Cardiology, Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958/9, 140 21 Praha 4, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Cardiology and Angiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, U Nemocnice 2, 128 08 Praha 2, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Nonlinear Modeling, Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Pod vodárenskou věží 2, 182 07 Praha 8, Czech Republic. 5. Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics, and Cybernetics, Czech Technical University in Prague, Jugoslávských partyzánů 1580/3, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Complex Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Abstract
AIMS: Previous studies have demonstrated substantial variability in manual assessment of QRS complex duration (QRSd). Disagreements in QRSd measurements were also found in several automated algorithms tested on digitized electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings. The aim of our study was to investigate the variability of automated QRSd measurements performed by two commercially available electrocardiographs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two GE MAC 5000 (GE-1 and GE-2) electrocardiographs and two Mortara ELI 350 (Mortara-1 and Mortara-2) electrocardiographs were used in the study. Participants for the study were recruited from patients hospitalized in the department of cardiology of a university hospital. Participants underwent up to four recording sessions within a single day with a different electrocardiograph at each session when two to four immediately successive ECG recordings were undertaken. In 76 patients, 683 ECGs were recorded; the mean QRSd was 109.0 ± 26.1 ms. The QRSd difference ≥10 ms between the first and second intra-session ECG was found in 7, 3, 20, and 14% of ECG pairs for GE-1, GE-2, Mortara-1, and Mortara-2, respectively. No inter-session difference in QRSd was found within both manufacturers. In individual patients, Mortara calculated the mean QRSd to be longer by 7.3 ms (95% CI: 6.2-8.5 ms, P < 0.0001) with a 2.1-times (95% CI: 1.9-2.4) greater standard deviation of the mean QRSd (7.1 vs. 3.3 ms, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Electrocardiographs from two manufacturers measured QRSd values with a systematic difference and a significantly different level of precision. This may have important clinical implications in selection of suitable candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Previous studies have demonstrated substantial variability in manual assessment of QRS complex duration (QRSd). Disagreements in QRSd measurements were also found in several automated algorithms tested on digitized electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings. The aim of our study was to investigate the variability of automated QRSd measurements performed by two commercially available electrocardiographs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two GE MAC 5000 (GE-1 and GE-2) electrocardiographs and two Mortara ELI 350 (Mortara-1 and Mortara-2) electrocardiographs were used in the study. Participants for the study were recruited from patients hospitalized in the department of cardiology of a university hospital. Participants underwent up to four recording sessions within a single day with a different electrocardiograph at each session when two to four immediately successive ECG recordings were undertaken. In 76 patients, 683 ECGs were recorded; the mean QRSd was 109.0 ± 26.1 ms. The QRSd difference ≥10 ms between the first and second intra-session ECG was found in 7, 3, 20, and 14% of ECG pairs for GE-1, GE-2, Mortara-1, and Mortara-2, respectively. No inter-session difference in QRSd was found within both manufacturers. In individual patients, Mortara calculated the mean QRSd to be longer by 7.3 ms (95% CI: 6.2-8.5 ms, P < 0.0001) with a 2.1-times (95% CI: 1.9-2.4) greater standard deviation of the mean QRSd (7.1 vs. 3.3 ms, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Electrocardiographs from two manufacturers measured QRSd values with a systematic difference and a significantly different level of precision. This may have important clinical implications in selection of suitable candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Casper Lund-Andersen; Helen H Petersen; Christian Jøns; Berit T Philbert; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Lene T Skovgaard; Jesper H Svendsen Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Matthijs L Becker; Dominic Snijders; Claudia W van Gemeren; Hylke Jan Kingma; Steven F L van Lelyveld; Thijs J Giezen Journal: Cardiovasc Toxicol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 2.755