BACKGROUND: QRS narrowing after CRT is a predictor of patient outcome. Further narrowing can be obtained by interventricular pacing delay (VVd) optimization, raising interest to inter and intraobserver variation in manual measurements of QRS duration. METHODS: (a) Variation in intrinsic rhythm QRS duration in CRT patients with LBBB: In 40 intrinsic 12-lead ECGs, six observers measured QRS duration defined as widest QRS in any lead. In 20 of these ECGs, two observers repeated the measurements. (b) Variation in paced QRS duration at different VVd settings and agreement in selecting the narrowest QRS: In 20 CRT patients, five paced ECGs were recorded at different VVds. The most frequently selected VVd(s) estimated to cause the narrowest QRS in each patient defined the optimal VVd. Two observers repeated the measurements and VVd selections. RESULTS: Absolute interobserver difference in measured QRS duration in intrinsic rhythm ECGs was mean 2 ms, range (-40; 40 ms), mean limits of agreement (LoA): -21; 25 ms. Absolute interobserver difference in measured QRS duration in paced ECGs was mean 3 ms, range (-50; 60 ms), mean LoA: -20; 27 ms. There was no difference in LoA between intrinsic and paced QRS duration (lower limit p = 0.68; upper limit p = 0.44). The optimal VVd was included in 17/20 (85%) of the VVd selections by six observers. Interobserver variation was comparable with the intraobserver variation. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variation and intraobserver variation in manually measured paced and intrinsic rhythm QRS duration are clinically acceptable and comparable in a cohort of CRT patients. Inter and intraobserver reproducibility for selecting the optimal VVd is good and warrants manual VVd optimization for QRS narrowing in CRT.
BACKGROUND: QRS narrowing after CRT is a predictor of patient outcome. Further narrowing can be obtained by interventricular pacing delay (VVd) optimization, raising interest to inter and intraobserver variation in manual measurements of QRS duration. METHODS: (a) Variation in intrinsic rhythm QRS duration in CRT patients with LBBB: In 40 intrinsic 12-lead ECGs, six observers measured QRS duration defined as widest QRS in any lead. In 20 of these ECGs, two observers repeated the measurements. (b) Variation in paced QRS duration at different VVd settings and agreement in selecting the narrowest QRS: In 20 CRT patients, five paced ECGs were recorded at different VVds. The most frequently selected VVd(s) estimated to cause the narrowest QRS in each patient defined the optimal VVd. Two observers repeated the measurements and VVd selections. RESULTS: Absolute interobserver difference in measured QRS duration in intrinsic rhythm ECGs was mean 2 ms, range (-40; 40 ms), mean limits of agreement (LoA): -21; 25 ms. Absolute interobserver difference in measured QRS duration in paced ECGs was mean 3 ms, range (-50; 60 ms), mean LoA: -20; 27 ms. There was no difference in LoA between intrinsic and paced QRS duration (lower limit p = 0.68; upper limit p = 0.44). The optimal VVd was included in 17/20 (85%) of the VVd selections by six observers. Interobserver variation was comparable with the intraobserver variation. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variation and intraobserver variation in manually measured paced and intrinsic rhythm QRS duration are clinically acceptable and comparable in a cohort of CRT patients. Inter and intraobserver reproducibility for selecting the optimal VVd is good and warrants manual VVd optimization for QRS narrowing in CRT.
Authors: Maxime De Guillebon; Jean-Benoit Thambo; Sylvain Ploux; Antoine Deplagne; Frederic Sacher; Pierre Jais; Michel Haissaguerre; Philippe Ritter; Jacques Clementy; Pierre Bordachar Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-03-04
Authors: Borys Surawicz; Rory Childers; Barbara J Deal; Leonard S Gettes; James J Bailey; Anton Gorgels; E William Hancock; Mark Josephson; Paul Kligfield; Jan A Kors; Peter Macfarlane; Jay W Mason; David M Mirvis; Peter Okin; Olle Pahlm; Pentti M Rautaharju; Gerard van Herpen; Galen S Wagner; Hein Wellens Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Frank Ruschitzka; William T Abraham; Jagmeet P Singh; Jeroen J Bax; Jeffrey S Borer; Josep Brugada; Kenneth Dickstein; Ian Ford; John Gorcsan; Daniel Gras; Henry Krum; Peter Sogaard; Johannes Holzmeister Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jan De Pooter; Milad El Haddad; Roland Stroobandt; Marc De Buyzere; Frank Timmermans Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Renaud Gervais; Christophe Leclercq; Aparna Shankar; Sandra Jacobs; Hans Eiskjaer; Arne Johannessen; Nick Freemantle; John G F Cleland; Luigi Tavazzi; Claude Daubert Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2009-06-07 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Kazi T Haq; Katherine J Lutz; Kyle K Peters; Natalie E Craig; Evan Mitchell; Anish K Desai; Nathan W L Stencel; Elsayed Z Soliman; João A C Lima; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 1.438