A smartphone application for semi-automated QT interval analysis based on a snapshot of an electrocardiogram trace displayed on a patient monitor.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
David Beckmann, Moritz Flick, Karim Kouz, Bernd Saugel
{"title":"A smartphone application for semi-automated QT interval analysis based on a snapshot of an electrocardiogram trace displayed on a patient monitor.","authors":"David Beckmann, Moritz Flick, Karim Kouz, Bernd Saugel","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01277-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We developed a smartphone application (SMART-QT application) that can semi-automatically measure QT and QTc intervals based on a snapshot of the electrocardiogram (ECG) trace and the heart rate displayed on a patient monitor. In this study, we aimed to validate the SMART-QT application. In this prospective single-center method comparison study, we measured QT and QTc intervals with the SMART-QT application (QT<sub>APP</sub> and QTc<sub>APP</sub>; test method) and simultaneously manually measured QT and QTc intervals from a 12-lead ECG (QT<sub>REF</sub> and QTc<sub>REF</sub>; reference method) in 57 adult volunteers and patients who had sinus rhythm and no acute or chronic cardiac comorbidities. To investigate the agreement between QT<sub>APP</sub> and QT<sub>REF</sub> and between QTc<sub>APP</sub> and QTc<sub>REF</sub>, we performed Bland-Altman analyses and calculated the mean of the differences, the standard deviation, and the 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA). We defined clinically acceptable agreement as maximum mean of the differences ± standard deviation of 20 ± 20 ms. The mean of the differences between QT<sub>APP</sub> and QT<sub>REF</sub> was 14 ± 20 ms (95%-LOA -26 to 54 ms). The mean of the differences between QTc<sub>APP</sub> and QTc<sub>REF</sub> was 13 ± 15 ms (95%-LOA -16 to 42 ms). The agreement between QT<sub>APP</sub> and QT<sub>REF</sub> and between QTc<sub>APP</sub> and QTc<sub>REF</sub> was clinically acceptable in adult volunteers and patients without cardiac comorbidities.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01277-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We developed a smartphone application (SMART-QT application) that can semi-automatically measure QT and QTc intervals based on a snapshot of the electrocardiogram (ECG) trace and the heart rate displayed on a patient monitor. In this study, we aimed to validate the SMART-QT application. In this prospective single-center method comparison study, we measured QT and QTc intervals with the SMART-QT application (QTAPP and QTcAPP; test method) and simultaneously manually measured QT and QTc intervals from a 12-lead ECG (QTREF and QTcREF; reference method) in 57 adult volunteers and patients who had sinus rhythm and no acute or chronic cardiac comorbidities. To investigate the agreement between QTAPP and QTREF and between QTcAPP and QTcREF, we performed Bland-Altman analyses and calculated the mean of the differences, the standard deviation, and the 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA). We defined clinically acceptable agreement as maximum mean of the differences ± standard deviation of 20 ± 20 ms. The mean of the differences between QTAPP and QTREF was 14 ± 20 ms (95%-LOA -26 to 54 ms). The mean of the differences between QTcAPP and QTcREF was 13 ± 15 ms (95%-LOA -16 to 42 ms). The agreement between QTAPP and QTREF and between QTcAPP and QTcREF was clinically acceptable in adult volunteers and patients without cardiac comorbidities.

半自动化QT间期分析的智能手机应用程序,基于在患者监护仪上显示的心电图跟踪快照。
我们开发了一个智能手机应用程序(SMART-QT应用程序),可以根据心电图(ECG)的快照和患者监视器上显示的心率半自动测量QT和QTc间隔。在本研究中,我们旨在验证SMART-QT的应用。在这项前瞻性单中心方法比较研究中,我们使用SMART-QT应用程序(QTAPP和QTcAPP;同时人工测量12导联心电图QT和QTc间隔(QTREF和QTcREF;研究对象为57名有窦性心律且无急性或慢性心脏合并症的成人志愿者和患者。为了研究QTAPP与QTREF、QTcAPP与QTcREF之间的一致性,我们进行了Bland-Altman分析,并计算了差异的平均值、标准差和一致性95%限(95% loa)。我们将临床可接受的一致性定义为差异的最大平均值±标准偏差20±20 ms。QTAPP与QTREF的平均差异为14±20 ms (95%-LOA -26 ~ 54 ms)。QTcAPP与QTcREF的平均差异为13±15 ms (95%-LOA -16 ~ 42 ms)。QTAPP与QTREF、QTcAPP与QTcREF的一致性在成人志愿者和无心脏合并症的患者中均为临床可接受的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信