Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

The variability of automated QRS duration measurement

V. Vancura, D. Wichterle, I. Ulc, J. Šmíd, M. Brabec, M. Zárybnická, R. Rokyta,

. 2017 ; 19 (4) : 636-643.

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc18010660

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.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18010660
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20180418140400.0
007      
ta
008      
180404s2017 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/europace/euw015 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28431054
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Vancura, Vlastimil $u Cardiology Department, Complex Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic. Department of Cardiology, Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958/9, 140 21 Praha 4, Czech Republic.
245    14
$a The variability of automated QRS duration measurement / $c V. Vancura, D. Wichterle, I. Ulc, J. Šmíd, M. Brabec, M. Zárybnická, R. Rokyta,
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    12
$a algoritmy $7 D000465
650    _2
$a diagnóza počítačová $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D003936
650    _2
$a elektrokardiografie $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D004562
650    _2
$a design vybavení $7 D004867
650    _2
$a analýza selhání vybavení $7 D019544
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a rozpoznávání automatizované $x metody $7 D010363
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Wichterle, Dan $u Department of Cardiology, Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958/9, 140 21 Praha 4, Czech Republic. Department of Cardiology and Angiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, U Nemocnice 2, 128 08 Praha 2, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Ulc, Ivan $u Cardiology Department, Complex Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Šmíd, Jirí $u Cardiology Department, Complex Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Brabec, Marek $u 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. Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics, and Cybernetics, Czech Technical University in Prague, Jugoslávských partyzánů 1580/3, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Zárybnická, Marta $u 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.
700    1_
$a Rokyta, Richard $u Cardiology Department, Complex Cardiovascular Centre, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00149837 $t Europace $x 1532-2092 $g Roč. 19, č. 4 (2017), s. 636-643
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28431054 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20180404 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20180418140500 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1288145 $s 1007472
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 19 $c 4 $d 636-643 $i 1532-2092 $m Europace $n Europace $x MED00149837
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20180404

Find record

Citation metrics

Logged in users only

Archiving options