【摘要】 探讨心房颤动(简称房颤)患者体表心电图QT间期的变化。入选81例房颤患者和71例对照者,测量Ⅰ导联和V2导联QT间期,根据Bazett公式计算QTc。结果:窦性心律时V2导联QT间期可测量性略高于Ⅰ导联,而房颤时相反。V2导联测得的QTc比Ⅰ导联长。房颤组与对照组比较,窦性心律时Ⅰ导联和V2导联的QTc两组间均无明显差异;房颤发作时Ⅰ导联QTc较对照组延长(429.01±43.08msvs408.50±31.93ms,P<0.05);V2导联QTc较对照组也延长(444.45±33.16msvs414.82±25.57ms,P<0.05)。房颤组房颤发作时与窦性心律时的自身对照比较,V2导联的QTc也延长(448.63±31.59msvs426.22±29.08ms,P<0.05)。结论:房颤患者在房颤发作时QTc延长,而房颤患者窦性心律时QTc与对照组无差异。更多还原

【Abstract】 To observe the change of QT interval on surface electrocardiogram in patients with atrial fibrillation,QT intervals were measured at lead I and lead V₂ in 81 patients with atrial fibrillation and 71 controls. QTc was calculated using Bazett′s formula. Results: The measurable ratios in lead V₂ were slightly higher than in lead Ⅰ during sinus rhythm,but those were opposite during atrial fibrillation. QTc in lead V₂ was longer than that in lead I. QTc in lead I and lead V₂ was both the same as atrial fibrillation group was compared to control group in sinus rhythm. However, QTc in lead I during atrial fibrillation was longer than that of control group（429.01±43.08 ms vs 408.50±31.93 ms,P<0.05）; QTc in lead V₂ during atrial fibrillation was longer than that of control group（444.45±33.16 ms vs 414.82±25.57 ms,P<0.05）. And when compared to itself, QTc in lead V₂ during atrial fibrillation was longer than that of sinus rhythm（448.63±31.59 ms vs 426.22±29.08 ms,P<0.05）. Conclusion: QTc is longer during atrial fibrillation but QTc in patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm is the same as that of control group更多还原