McLaughlin N B, Campbell R W, Murray A
Regional Medical Physics Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Br Heart J. 1995 Jul;74(1):84-9. doi: 10.1136/hrt.74.1.84.
To undertake a quantitative assessment of different automatic QT measurement techniques and investigate the influence of electrocardiogram filtering and algorithm parameters.
Four methods for identifying the end of the T wave were compared: (1) threshold crossing of the T wave (TH); (2) threshold crossing of the differential of the T wave (DTH); (3) intercept of an isoelectric level and the maximum T wave slope (SI); and (4) intercept of an isoelectric level and the line passing through the peak and the point of maximum slope of the T wave (PSI). Automatic QT measurements were made by all techniques following different electrocardiogram filtering and, when appropriate, with four different isoelectric levels and with three different threshold levels.
12 simultaneous standard electrocardiogram leads, containing at least two electrocardiogram complexes, were recorded from 25 healthy volunteers relaxing in a semirecumbent position.
Mean and standard deviation of differences between reference and automatic QT measurements were compared for the four techniques.
The mean automatic QT measurements varied by up to 62 ms, which was greater than has been found between manual measurements by experienced clinicians. Technique TH was particularly poor. The other techniques produced consistent results for most electrocardiogram filter, isoelectric level, and threshold level setting; but technique SI underestimated QT relative to the other techniques.
Different QT measurement techniques produced results which were influenced, to varying degrees, by filtering and technique variables. This is relevant for the inter-comparison of studies using different techniques. Technique TH, a common approach, is not recommended.
对不同的自动QT测量技术进行定量评估,并研究心电图滤波和算法参数的影响。
比较了四种识别T波终点的方法:(1)T波过阈值(TH);(2)T波微分过阈值(DTH);(3)等电位线与T波最大斜率的交点(SI);(4)等电位线与通过T波峰值和最大斜率点的直线的交点(PSI)。在不同的心电图滤波后,所有技术均进行自动QT测量,并在适当情况下,采用四种不同的等电位线和三种不同的阈值水平。
从25名半卧位放松的健康志愿者身上记录了12导联同步标准心电图,其中至少包含两个心电图复合波。
比较了四种技术的参考QT测量值与自动QT测量值之间差异的均值和标准差。
自动QT测量值的均值变化高达62毫秒,这比经验丰富的临床医生手动测量之间的差异还要大。技术TH尤其差。对于大多数心电图滤波、等电位线和阈值水平设置,其他技术产生了一致的结果;但技术SI相对于其他技术低估了QT。
不同的QT测量技术产生的结果受到滤波和技术变量不同程度的影响。这对于使用不同技术的研究之间的相互比较具有重要意义。不推荐使用技术TH这种常用方法。