Observational studyClinical cardiology2020
QTc interval evaluation in patients with right bundle branch block or bifascicular blocks.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- QTc interval measurement in patients with right bundle branch block: A practical method.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023Article
- Determinants of severe QTFrontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- QTc evaluation in patients with bundle branch block.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2020Review
- QTc interval evaluation in patients with right bundle branch block or bifascicular blocks.Clinical cardiology · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe right bundle branch block (RBBB) and the bifascicular blocks affect QRS duration in the right precordial leads, which are usually used for QT interval determination. Up to now, there is no clear recommendation how to determine QT interval in patients with RBBB or bifascicular block. HYPOTHESIS: The hypothesis of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of a simple formula for RBBB and bifascicular block correction, thereby making it easier to determine the QTc interval.
methodsIn patients with intrinsic QRS duration <120 ms, artificial RBBB with either left posterior (LPFB) or left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), created by left ventricular pacing maneuvers, were corrected using the Bogossian formula (QTm) and afterward were heart rate corrected (QTmc). Heart rate correction was performed using different heart rate formulas in comparison to each other. The QTmc intervals were compared in each patient with the QTc interval during intrinsic rhythm.
resultsA total of scheduled 71 patients were included in this prospective multicenter observational comparative study. Compared to intrinsic QTc interval, the mean ΔQTmc interval by combination of the Bogossian and the Hodge formulas was -3 ± 24 ms in RBBB + LPFB (P = .44) and -6 ± 25 ms in RBBB + LAFB (P = .15). The Bogossian formula showed a significant deviation from the actual QTc interval with both the Bazett and the Fridericia formulas.
conclusionIn combination with the Hodge formula, the Boggosian formula delivered the best results in comparing the true QTc interval in narrow QRS with the QTmc interval in the presence of a bifascicular block.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.