Home > News > 74/Measuring the QRS – How hard can it be?! A method comparison study
Arrhythmia
Read Time: 2 mins

74/Measuring the QRS – How hard can it be?! A method comparison study

Published Online: September 27th 2010 European Journal of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology. 2020;6(Suppl. 1):abstr74
Authors: L Broadhurst (Presenting Author) - Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham; S Smith - Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham; M Smith - Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham
Quick Links:
Article
Article Information
Article:

Introduction: Accurate measurement of QRS duration is crucial in CRT to identify eligible patients. Furthermore, QRS narrowing is emerging as a key marker of successful CRT with a growing evidence base of improved response and long-term survival. Despite this, there is no agreed technique to measure QRS duration and different methods are used in clinical practice. Global QRS duration has been shown to have improved accuracy over individual lead measurement (1). However, global QRS duration is less easily measured without specialist software, hence it is not routinely used in practice. This study compared whether an abbreviated global QRS measurement over 5 leads on the device programmer was comparable to individual lead measurements on the 12 lead ECG.

Methods: Comparison of ECG data for patients undergoing CRT implantation with standard indications. All were implanted with an Abbott CRT device. Individual lead QRS duration from the 12 Lead ECG was compared to abbreviated global QRS duration measured on the Abbott programmer. Up to 6 sets of ECGs were measured per patient. Abbreviated global QRS duration was measured using digital calipers in leads I, II, III, aVF and V5 ‘from the earliest onset to the latest offset of the waveform in all leads’. Individual lead QRS duration in all 12 leads was measured using digital calipers on the 12 Lead ECG via the Phillips haemodynamic system, together with the maximum (QRS_Max) and Mean (QRS_Mean) of the individual leads. 50mm/sec sweep speed was used as standard and gain optimised to improve measurement accuracy. Each measurement technique was applied by a blinded operator and verified by a third independent operator. Bland Altman analysis was used for comparison.

Results: In total, 158 sets of ECG data were compared. Importantly, there was considerable variation in QRS duration between the individual leads on the 12 Lead ECG, likely due to isoelectric segments specific to ECG vector. Compared to GlobalQRS, QRS_Mean averaged 8.4ms shorter with 95% confidence interval for the observed differences ± 21.7ms. This is shown as a Bland-Altman plot (Figure). Greater levels of variation were observed between GlobalQRS and individual lead measurements, e.g. GlobalQRS vs Lead I showed an average difference of 14.2ms with 95% confidence interval ±35.6ms.

Discussion: Accurate measurement of QRS duration is critical for electrical optimisation of CRT. This study found substantial variation between different methods of assessing the QRS duration. We recommend further research and development of practical guidelines to standardise clinical practice. Where single lead measurement is used, the target ECG lead should be specified to avoid inaccuracies that may affect device programming. We also recommend consistency of measurement technique between implantation and follow-up. The device programmer is commonly used in both settings and could be used to measure abbreviated global QRS duration to standardise measurement throughout the patient’s journey.

References 

  1. De Pooter J, El Haddad M, Timmers L, et al. Different methods to measure QRS duration in CRT patients: Impact on the predictive value of QRS duration parameters. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2016;21:305–15.

Figure:

Article Information:

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Arrhythmia
Arrhythmia
43/Cardiac tamponade as a complication of transseptal puncture: associations and operatordependent variables during left atrial ablation at Barts Heart Centre
E Maclean (Presenting Author) - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; K Mahtani - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; C Butcher - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; N Ahluwalia - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; M Finlay - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; S Honarbakhsh - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; A Creta - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; A Chow - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; V Sawhney - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; V Ezzat - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; MJ Earley - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; M Dhinoja - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; S Sporton - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; MD Lowe - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; PD Lambiase - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; F Khan - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; SY Ahsan - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; RJ Hunter - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; RJ Schilling - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; O Sega - St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London Read Time: 2 mins

European Journal of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology. 2021;7(Suppl. 1):abstr43

Introduction: Cardiac tamponade is a high morbidity complication of transseptal puncture (TSP). We examined the incidence and predictors of TSP-related cardiac tamponade (TRCT) for all patients undergoing left atrial ablation at our centre from 2016-2020. Methods: Patient and procedural variables were extracted retrospectively. Cases of cardiac tamponade were scrutinised to adjudicate TSP culpability. Adjusted multivariate […]

  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-down-editablearrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-red tick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72