Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1995 Dec;74(6):676-9.
doi: 10.1136/hrt.74.6.676.

Use of lead adjustment formulas for QT dispersion after myocardial infarction

J M Glancy  1 , C J Garratt, K L Woods, D P de Bono
Affiliations

Use of lead adjustment formulas for QT dispersion after myocardial infarction

J M Glancy et al. Br Heart J. 1995 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether lead adjustment formulas for correcting QT dispersion measurements are appropriate in patients after myocardial infarction.

Design: Retrospective analysis of QTc dispersion measurements in 461 electrocardiograms (ECGs). Data are presented as uncorrected QTc dispersion "adjusted" for a number of measurable leads and coefficient of variation of QTc intervals for ECGs in which between six and 12 leads had a QT interval that could be measured accurately.

Patients: Patients were drawn from the placebo arm of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial. Some 163 patients who subsequently died and an equal number of known survivors had ECGs recorded on day 2 or 3 of acute myocardial infarction. ECGs were also available in 135 of these patients from at least 1 month postinfarct.

Results: The most common lead in which a QT interval measurement was omitted was aVR (n = 176), the least common lead was V3 (n = 13). The longest QTc interval measured was most usually in lead V4 (n = 72) and the shortest in lead V1 (n = 67). As the number of measurable leads decreased there was a small, nonsignificant increase in QTc dispersion from 12 lead to eight lead ECGs (mean (SD) 100 (35.5) v 109.5 (47.9) ms). Lead adjusted QTc dispersion (QTc dispersion/square root of the number of measurable leads) showed a large, significant increase when the number of measurable leads decreased from 12 to eight (28.9 (10.3) v 38.7 (16.1) ms, P < 0.001). A similar trend was seen for coefficient of variation of QTc intervals (standard deviation of QTc intervals/mean QTc interval 64.3 (2.19) v 8.45 (3.94)%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Lead adjustment formulas for QT dispersion are not appropriate in patients with myocardial infarction. Large differences in lead adjusted QTc dispersion are produced, dependent on the number of measurable leads, for very small differences in QTc dispersion. It is recommended that QT dispersion is presented as unadjusted QT and QTc dispersion, stating the mean (SD) of the number of leads in which a QT interval was measured.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Eur Heart J. 1991 Mar;12(3):423-7 - PubMed
    1. Am J Cardiol. 1992 Mar 1;69(6):634-8 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1992 Jun 27;339(8809):1553-8 - PubMed
    1. Am J Cardiol. 1993 Oct 15;72(12):973-6 - PubMed
    1. J Electrocardiol. 1993 Oct;26(4):321-31 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms