INTRODUCTION: QTc dispersion has traditionally been calculated from all 12 leads of a standard electrocardiogram (ECG). It is possible that alternative, quicker methods using fewer than 12 leads could be used to provide the same information. METHODS AND RESULTS: We have previously shown a difference in QTc dispersion from ECGs recorded at least 1 month after myocardial infarction between patients who subsequently died and long-term survivors. In the current study, we recalculated QTc dispersion in these ECGs using different methods to determine if the observed difference in QTc dispersion measurements between the two groups, as calculated from 12-lead ECGs, persisted when using smaller sets of leads. QTc dispersion was recalculated by four methods: (1) with the two extreme QTc intervals excluded; (2) from the six precordial leads; (3) from the three leads most likely to contribute to QTc dispersion (aVF, V1, V4); and (4) from the three quasi-orthogonal leads (aVF, I, V2). For each of the 270 12-lead ECGs examined, a mean of 9.9 leads (SD 1.5 leads) had a QT interval analyzed; the QT interval could not be accurately measured in the remaining leads. Using the standard 12-lead measurement of QTc dispersion, there was a difference in the fall in QTc dispersion from early to late ECG between the groups: 9.1 (SD 60.8) msec for deaths versus 34.4 (55.2) msec for survivors (P = 0.016). This difference in QTc dispersion between early and late ECGs was maintained using either three-lead method (quasi-orthogonal leads: -2.6 [56.2] msec for deaths vs 26.9 [54.3] msec for survivors [P = 0.003]; "likeliest" leads: 8.6 [64.9] msec vs 29.5 [50.2] msec [P = 0.05]), but not when using the other two methods (precordial leads: 19.1 [55.5] msec vs 22 [50.8] msec [P = 0.76]; extreme leads removed: 9.2 [50.1] msec vs 21.8 [42] msec [P = 0.13]). CONCLUSION: QTc dispersion calculated from three leads may be as useful a measurement as QTc dispersion calculated from all leads of a standard ECG. Its advantages over the standard measurement are its simplicity and the lack of problems with lead adjustment.
INTRODUCTION:QTc dispersion has traditionally been calculated from all 12 leads of a standard electrocardiogram (ECG). It is possible that alternative, quicker methods using fewer than 12 leads could be used to provide the same information. METHODS AND RESULTS: We have previously shown a difference in QTc dispersion from ECGs recorded at least 1 month after myocardial infarction between patients who subsequently died and long-term survivors. In the current study, we recalculated QTc dispersion in these ECGs using different methods to determine if the observed difference in QTc dispersion measurements between the two groups, as calculated from 12-lead ECGs, persisted when using smaller sets of leads. QTc dispersion was recalculated by four methods: (1) with the two extreme QTc intervals excluded; (2) from the six precordial leads; (3) from the three leads most likely to contribute to QTc dispersion (aVF, V1, V4); and (4) from the three quasi-orthogonal leads (aVF, I, V2). For each of the 270 12-lead ECGs examined, a mean of 9.9 leads (SD 1.5 leads) had a QT interval analyzed; the QT interval could not be accurately measured in the remaining leads. Using the standard 12-lead measurement of QTc dispersion, there was a difference in the fall in QTc dispersion from early to late ECG between the groups: 9.1 (SD 60.8) msec for deaths versus 34.4 (55.2) msec for survivors (P = 0.016). This difference in QTc dispersion between early and late ECGs was maintained using either three-lead method (quasi-orthogonal leads: -2.6 [56.2] msec for deaths vs 26.9 [54.3] msec for survivors [P = 0.003]; "likeliest" leads: 8.6 [64.9] msec vs 29.5 [50.2] msec [P = 0.05]), but not when using the other two methods (precordial leads: 19.1 [55.5] msec vs 22 [50.8] msec [P = 0.76]; extreme leads removed: 9.2 [50.1] msec vs 21.8 [42] msec [P = 0.13]). CONCLUSION:QTc dispersion calculated from three leads may be as useful a measurement as QTc dispersion calculated from all leads of a standard ECG. Its advantages over the standard measurement are its simplicity and the lack of problems with lead adjustment.
Authors: Elia DE Maria; Antonio Curnis; Polyxeni Garyfallidis; Giosuè Mascioli; Lucio Santangelo; Raffaele Calabrò; Livio Dei Cas Journal: Heart Int Date: 2006-05-28