Background: Automatic measurement becomes a preference, and indeed a necessity, when analyzing 1000 s of ECGs in the setting of either drug-inducing QT prolongation screening or genome-wide association studies of QT interval. The problem is that individual manufacturers apply different computerized algorithms to measure QT interval. We conducted a comparative study to assess the outcomes with different automated measurements of QT interval between ECG machine manufacturers and validated the related heart rate correction methods.
Methods and results: Herein, we directly compared these different commercial systems using 10,529 Fukuda Denshi ECGs and 72,754 Nihon Kohden ECGs taken in healthy Japanese volunteers. Log-transformed data revealed an equal optimal heart rate correction formula of QT interval for Fukuda Denshi and Nihon Kohden, in the form of QTc = QT/RR(-0.347). However, with the raw data, the optimal heart rate correction formula of QT interval was in the form of QTc = QT+0.156×(1-RR) for Fukuda Denshi and QTc = QT+0.152×(1-RR) for Nihon Kohden. After optimization of heart rate correction of QT interval by the linear regression model using either log-transformed data or raw data, QTc interval was ∼10 ms longer in Nihon Kohden ECGs than in those recorded on Fukuda Denshi machines. Indeed, regression analysis revealed that differences in the ECG machine used had up to a two-fold larger impact on QT variation than gender difference. Such an impact is likely to be of considerable importance when ECGs for a given individual are recorded on different machines in the setting of multi-institutional joint research.
Conclusions: We recommend that ECG machines of the same manufacturer should be used to measure QT and RR intervals in the setting of multi-institutional joint research. It is desirable to unify the computer algorithm for automatic QT and RR measurements from an ECG.