Sarma J S, Sarma R J, Bilitch M, Katz D, Song S L
Am J Cardiol. 1984 Jul 1;54(1):103-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(84)90312-6.
A new exponential formula to characterize the human RR-QT relation was evaluated in comparison with Bazett's formula in 16 subjects: 10 healthy, normal men (ages 18 to 30 years) who exercised on a stationary bicycle, and 6 patients (ages 50 to 80 years; 2 women and 4 men) with rate-programmable VVI pacemakers whose rates were changed by an external programmer. The RR and QT intervals for heart rate in the range of 50 to 180 beats/min were measured from electrocardiographic tracings recorded at a paper speed of 100 mm/s. The data from each subject were fitted separately by 4 formulas by an appropriate regression analysis using a statistical package program: (F1) QT = A1 - B1Exp(-k1RR); (F2) QT = A2[1-Exp-(-k2RR)]; (F3) QT = A3 square root (RR) + B3; and (F4) QT = A4* square root (RR), where all A, B, and k are regression parameters. The relative goodness of fit of data by the 4 formulas was assessed by the mean-squared residual and the Akaike Information Criterion using Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests. This analysis confirmed that F1 is the best model among the formulas tested and F4 (Bazett's formula) is the least acceptable for both exercised and paced groups. The deviations from Bazett's formula were more striking for the paced group than for the exercised group, as reflected by the mean-squared residual values for F4 (715 +/- 86 for the paced group vs 384 +/- 41 for the exercised group, p less than 0.005).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
在16名受试者中,对一种用于描述人体RR-QT关系的新指数公式与巴泽特公式进行了评估比较。这16名受试者包括:10名健康的正常男性(年龄在18至30岁之间),他们在固定自行车上进行锻炼;以及6名患有可程控VVI起搏器的患者(年龄在50至80岁之间,2名女性和4名男性),其心率由外部程控仪改变。心率在50至180次/分钟范围内的RR和QT间期,是从以100毫米/秒纸速记录的心电图描记图上测量得到的。使用统计软件包程序,通过适当的回归分析,用4个公式分别对每个受试者的数据进行拟合:(F1) QT = A1 - B1Exp(-k1RR);(F2) QT = A2[1 - Exp-(-k2RR)];(F3) QT = A3√(RR) + B3;以及(F4) QT = A4*√(RR),其中所有的A、B和k都是回归参数。通过均方残差和赤池信息准则,使用威尔科克森符号秩检验来评估这4个公式对数据的相对拟合优度。该分析证实,在测试的公式中,F1是最佳模型,而F4(巴泽特公式)在锻炼组和起搏组中都是最不可接受的。起搏组与巴泽特公式的偏差比锻炼组更显著,这一点由F4的均方残差值反映出来(起搏组为715±86,锻炼组为384±41,p<0.005)。(摘要截短为250字)