A comparison of commonly used QT correction formulae: The effect of heart rate on the QTc of normal ECGs

Several formulas have been proposed to adjust the QT interval for heart rate, the most commonly used being the QT correction formula (QTc = QT/square root of RR) proposed in 1920 by Bazett. The QTc formula was derived from observations in only 39 young subjects. Recently, the adequacy of Bazett's formula has been questioned. To evaluate the heart rate QT association, the QT interval was measured on the initial baseline electrocardiogram of 5,018 subjects (2,239 men and 2,779 women) from the Framingham Heart Study with a mean age of 44 years (range 28 to 62). Persons with coronary artery disease were excluded. A linear regression model was developed for correcting QT according to RR cycle length. The large sample allowed for subdivision of the population into sex-specific deciles of RR intervals and for comparison of QT, Bazett's QTc and linear corrected QT (QTLC). The mean RR interval was 0.81 second (range 0.5 to 1.47) heart rate 74 beats/min (range 41 to 120), and mean QT was 0.35 second (range 0.24 to 0.49) in men and 0.36 second (range 0.26 to 0.48) in women. The linear regression model yielded a correction formula (for a reference RR interval of 1 second): QTLC = QT + 0.154 (1-RR) that applies for men and women. This equation corrects QT more reliably than the Bazett's formula, which overcorrects the QT interval at fast heart rates and undercorrects it at low heart rates. Lower and upper limits of normal QT values in relation to RR were generated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

To compare the QT/RR relation in healthy subjects in order to investigate the differences in optimum heart rate correction of the QT interval. 50 healthy volunteers (25 women, mean age 33.6 (9.5) years, range 19-59 years) took part. Each subject underwent serial 12 lead electrocardiographic monitoring over 24 hours with a 10 second ECG obtained every two minutes. QT intervals and heart rates were measured automatically. In each subject, the QT/RR relation was modelled using six generic regressions, including a linear model (QT = beta + alpha x RR), a hyperbolic model (QT = beta + alpha/RR), and a parabolic model (QT = beta x RR(alpha)). For each model, the parallelism and identity of the regression lines in separate subjects were statistically tested. The patterns of the QT/RR relation were very different among subjects. Regardless of the generic form of the regression model, highly significant differences were found not only between the regression lines but also between their slopes. For instance, with the linear model, the individual slope (parameter alpha) of any subject differed highly significantly (p < 0.000001) from the linear slope of no fewer than 21 (median 32) other subjects. The linear regression line of 20 subjects differed significantly (p < 0.000001) from the linear regression lines of each other subject. Conversion of the QT/RR regressions to QTc heart rate correction also showed substantial intersubject differences. Optimisation of the formula QTc = QT/RR(alpha) led to individual values of alpha ranging from 0.234 to 0.486. The QT/RR relation exhibits a very substantial intersubject variability in healthy volunteers. The hypothesis underlying each prospective heart rate correction formula that a "physiological" QT/RR relation exists that can be mathematically described and applied to all people is incorrect. Any general heart rate correction formula can be used only for very approximate clinical assessment of the QTc interval over a narrow window of resting heart rates. For detailed precise studies of the QTc interval (for example, drug induced QT interval prolongation), the individual QT/RR relation has to be taken into account.