Accuracy of popular automatic QT Interval algorithms assessed by a 'Gold Standard' and comparison with a Novel method: computer simulation study

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of the QT interval is very important from a clinical and pharmaceutical drug safety screening perspective. Expert manual measurement is both imprecise and imperfectly reproducible, yet it is used as the reference standard to assess the accuracy of current automatic computer algorithms, which thus produce reproducible but incorrect measurements of the QT interval. There is a scientific imperative to evaluate the most commonly used algorithms with an accurate and objective 'gold standard' and investigate novel automatic algorithms if the commonly used algorithms are found to be deficient. METHODS: This study uses a validated computer simulation of 8 different noise contaminated ECG waveforms (with known QT intervals of 461 and 495 ms), generated from a cell array using Luo-Rudy membrane kinetics and the Crank-Nicholson method, as a reference standard to assess the accuracy of commonly used QT measurement algorithms. Each ECG contaminated with 39 mixtures of noise at 3 levels of intensity was first filtered then subjected to three threshold methods (T1, T2, T3), two T wave slope methods (S1, S2) and a Novel method. The reproducibility and accuracy of each algorithm was compared for each ECG. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation for methods T1, T2, T3, S1, S2 and Novel were 0.36, 0.23, 1.9, 0.93, 0.92 and 0.62 respectively. For ECGs of real QT interval 461 ms the methods T1, T2, T3, S1, S2 and Novel calculated the mean QT intervals(standard deviations) to be 379.4(1.29), 368.5(0.8), 401.3(8.4), 358.9(4.8), 381.5(4.6) and 464(4.9) ms respectively. For ECGs of real QT interval 495 ms the methods T1, T2, T3, S1, S2 and Novel calculated the mean QT intervals(standard deviations) to be 396.9(1.7), 387.2(0.97), 424.9(8.7), 386.7(2.2), 396.8(2.8) and 493(0.97) ms respectively. These results showed significant differences between means at >95% confidence level. Shifting ECG baselines caused large errors of QT interval with T1 and T2 but no error with Novel. CONCLUSION: The algorithms T2, T1 and Novel gave low coefficients of variation for QT measurement. The Novel technique gave the most accurate measurement of QT interval, T3 (a differential threshold method) was the next most accurate by a large margin. The objective and accurate 'gold standard' presented in this paper may be useful to assess new QT measurement algorithms. The Novel algorithm may prove to be more accurate and reliable method to measure the QT interval