• Aditee Dash, Cyril Torado, Nieman Paw, Dali Fan, Nayereh Pezeshkian, and Uma Srivatsa.
• Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of California, Davis, United States of America.
• J Electrocardiol. 2019 Sep 1; 56: 70-76.

BackgroundQT interval measured in the electrocardiogram (ECG) varies with RR interval challenging the calculation of corrected QT (QTc) in Atrial fibrillation (AF).ObjectivesTo identify the ideal Lead, number of complexes and the formula to measure QTc that correlates best between AF and sinus rhythm (SR).ProcedureWe identified ECGs from patients with AF before and after conversion to SR. After excluding patients on drugs and clinical conditions that prolong QT interval, QTc was calculated from all the leads using the formulae: Bazett (BF), Fridericia (FF), Framingham(FrF), Hodges (HF), Saige (SF) and Rautaharju (RF) during AF and SR. After identifying the lead with best linear correlation, we calculated QTc following the longest RR, multiple QRS complexes and average automated RR interval during AF and compared to SR.FindingsIn 52 patients (male 69%, age 63 ± 9 yrs), QTc measured from Lead II correlated best with SR in majority of the formulae. QTc was consistently shorter with linear formulae. While BF overestimated QTc, FF was optimal comparing AF vs SR (416 ± 33 vs 411 ± 38 ms, ns) calculated from single, multiple or average automated RR interval. Bland Altman analysis of the average automated QTc versus the delta of individual automated QTcs shows the least variation in the QTc calculated by FF.ConclusionsBF in commercial software is not ideal for measurement of QTc in AF, Fridericia Formula in lead II from the average RR from automated ECG measurement maybe utilized for the calculation of QTc.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2 keywords...

hide…