Comparison of manual and automated measurements of the QT interval in healthy volunteers: An analysis of five thorough QT studies

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 86, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 503-506

  Fosser, C ^a   Duczynski, G ^a   Agin, M ^b   Wicker, P ^c,d   Darpo, B ^e  

^a PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^b MM and T Associates LLC   (United States)

^c PW Consulting LLC   (United States)

^d Spacelabs Clinical Trial Services ^*  (United States)

^e KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MOXIFLOXACIN; PLACEBO;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; ASSAY; AUTOMATED MEASUREMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MANUAL MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QT INTERVAL; VOLUNTEER;

AUTOMATION; AZA COMPOUNDS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HUMANS; LONG QT SYNDROME; QUINOLINES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 70350230145     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2009.34     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline E14. The Clinical Evaluation of QT/QTc Interval Prolongation and Proarrhythmic Potential for Non-Antiarrhythmic Drugs. (12 May 2005).
2. Darpo, B. et al. Man versus machine: is there an optimal method for QT measurements in thorough QT studies? J. Clin. Pharmacol. 46, 598-612 (2006).
3. McLaughlin, N.B., Campbell, R.W. & Murray, A. Accuracy of four automatic QT measurement techniques in cardiac patients and healthy subjects. Heart 76, 422-426 (1996).
4. Kligfeld, P. et al. Relation of QT interval measurements to evolving automated algorithms from diferent manufacturers of electrocardiographs. Am. J. Cardiol. 98, 88-92 (2006).
5. Hnatkova, K., Gang, Y., Batchvarov, V.N. & Malik, M. Precision of QT interval measurement by advanced electrocardiographic equipment. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 29, 1277-1284 (2006).
6. Kligfeld, P., Tyl, B., Maarek, M. & Maison-Blanche, P. Magnitude, mechanism, and reproducibility of QT interval diferences between superimposed global and individual lead ECG complexes. Ann. Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 12, 145-152 (2007).
7. Azie, N.E. et al. Comparing methods of measurement for detecting drug-induced changes in the QT interval: implications for thoroughly conducted ECG studies 4. Ann. Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 9, 166-174 (2004).
8. Vaidean, G.D. et al. Short-term repeatability of electrocardiographic spatial T-wave axis and QT interval. J. Electrocardiol. 38, 139-147 (2005).
9. Savelieva, I., Yi, G., Guo, X., Hnatkova, K. & Malik, M. Agreement and reproducibility of automatic versus manual measurement of QT interval and QT dispersion. Am. J. Cardiol. 81, 471-477 (1998).
10. Sarapa, N. Quality assessment of digital annotated ECG data from clinical trials by the FDA ECG warehouse. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 6, 595-607 (2007).
11. Moody, G.B., Koch, H. & Steinhof, U. The PhysioNet/Computers in cardiology challenge 2006: QT interval measurement. (2006).
12. Prineas, R., Crow, R.S. & Blackburn, H. The Minnesota Code Manual of Electrocardiographic Findings: Standard and Procedures for Measurement and Classifcation (John Wright, London, 1982).
13. Bland, J.M. & Altman, D.G. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting diference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346, 1085-1087 (1995).