Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Oct;22(10):1139-44. doi: 10.1111/acem.12752. Epub 2015 Sep 16.

The Half RR Rule: A Poor Rule of Thumb and Not a Risk Assessment Tool for QT Interval Prolongation.

Author information

1
Department of Clinical Toxicology and Pharmacology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
2
Clinical Toxicology Research Group, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Measuring the QT interval on an electrocardiogram (ECG) is integral to risk assessment of Torsade de Pointes (TdP). This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of the 1/2 RR rule as a risk assessment tool for drug-induced TdP, comparing it to the QT nomogram, Bazett's corrected QT (QTcB), and Fridericia's corrected QT (QTcF).

METHODS:

The authors calculated sensitivity and specificity of the 1/2 RR rule using a published data set of 129 cases of drug-induced TdP and 316 controls (noncardiotoxic overdoses), compared to the QT nomogram, QTcB > 500 msec and QTcF > 500 msec. To further determine the value of the 1/2 RR rule, its observed positive, and negative agreement were calculated when compared to the QT nomogram for determining an abnormal QT in eight samples of different drugs in overdose.

RESULTS:

The sensitivity and specificity of the 1/2 RR rule were 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 80% to 93%) and 53% (95% CI = 47% to 58%), respectively, compared to the QT nomogram (sensitivity = 97%, 95% CI = 92% to 99%; specificity = 99%, 95% CI = 97% to 100%). It was also less sensitive than QTcB > 500 msec and had a lower specificity than QTcB > 500 msec and QTcF > 500 msec. In drug overdose patients, the 1/2 RR rule had poor observed agreement averaging 41%, which was mainly due to poor positive agreement, except for amisulpride where there was good agreement.

CONCLUSIONS:

The 1/2 RR rule was not as sensitive as the QT nomogram or QTcB > 500 msec for drug-induced TdP. It had poor positive agreement in almost all overdose patients, resulting in over half of patients receiving unnecessary cardiac monitoring and repeat ECGs.

PMID:
26375169
DOI:
10.1111/acem.12752
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center