4.6 Article

Comparison of Formulas for Calculation of the Corrected QT Interval in Infants and Young Children

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 166, Issue 4, Pages 960-U271

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.12.037

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [1RC1HL100114-01, 1UL1-RR033176]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To compare 4 heart rate correction formulas for calculation of the rate corrected QT (QTc) interval among infants and young children. Study design R-R and QT intervals were measured from digital electrocardiograms. QTc were calculated with the Bazett, Fridericia, Hodges, and Framingham formulas. QTc vs R-R graphs were plotted, and slopes of the regression lines compared. Slopes of QTc-R-R regression lines close to zero indicate consistent QT corrections over the range of heart rates. Results We reviewed electrocardiograms from 702 children, with 233 (33%) <1 year of age and 567 (81%) <2 years. The average heart rate was 122 +/- 20 bpm (median 121 bpm). The slopes of the QTc-R-R regression lines for the 4 correction formulas were -0.019 (Bazett); 0.1028 (Fridericia); -0.1241 (Hodges); and 0.2748 (Framingham). With the Bazett formula, a QTc >460 ms was 2 SDs above the mean, compared with prolonged QTc values of 414, 443, and 353 ms for the Fridericia, Hodges, and Framingham formulas, respectively. Conclusions The Bazett formula calculated the most consistent QTc; 460 ms is the best threshold for prolonged QTc. The study supports continued use of the Bazett formula for infants and children and differs from the use of the Fridericia correction during clinical trials of new medications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available