Atrial fibrillation and QT corrected. What is the best formula to use?

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundQT interval varies with the heart rate (HR), so a correction in QT calculation is needed (QTc). Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with elevated HR and beat‐to‐beat variation.AimTo find best correlation between QTc in atrial fibrillation (AF) versus restored sinus rhytm (SR) after electrical cardioversion (ECV) (primary end point) and to determine which correction formula and method are the best to determine QTc in AF (secondary end point).MethodsDuring a 3‐month period, we considered patients who underwent 12‐lead ECG recording and received an AF diagnosis with indication for ECV. Exclusion criteria were as follows: QRS duration >120 ms, therapy with QT‐prolonging drugs, a rate control strategy and a nonelectrical cardioversion. The QT interval was corrected using Bazzett's, Framingham, Fridericia and Hodges formulas during the last ECG during AF and the first one immediately after ECV. QTc mean was calculated as mQTc (average of 10 QTc calculated beat per beat) and as QTcM (QTc calculated from the average of 10 raw QT and RR for each beat).ResultsFifty consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Bazett's formula showed a significant change in mean QTc value between the two rhythms (421.5 ± 33.9 vs. 446.1 ± 31.9; p < 0.001 for mQTc and 420.9 ± 34.1 vs. 441.8 ± 30.9; p = 0.003 for QTcM). On the contrary, in patients with SR, QTc assessed by the Framingham, Fridericia, and Hodges formulas was similar to that in AF. Furthermore, good correlations between mQTc and QTcM are present for each formula, even in AF or SR.ConclusionsDuring AF, Bazzett's formula, seems to be the most imprecise in QTc estimation.