QTc Calculator — Corrected QT Interval

Correct a measured QT interval for heart rate with four classic formulas side by side: Bazett, Fridericia, Framingham (Sagie) and Hodges — with sex-specific interpretation based on AHA/ACCF/HRS guidance.

Medical disclaimer: this page is an educational reference only. It performs arithmetic; it does not diagnose, treat, or clear anyone. Always discuss QTc values with a qualified healthcare professional.

Calculator

Try an example:

The four formulas

Bazett (1920)

QTc = QT / √RR   ·   RR in seconds

Most widely reported; overcorrects at fast heart rates, undercorrects at slow ones.

Fridericia (1920)

QTc = QT / RR1/3   ·   RR in seconds

More stable at rate extremes; preferred in thorough QT drug studies.

Framingham — Sagie et al. (1992)

QTc = QT + 0.154 × (1 − RR)   ·   QT, RR in seconds

With QT in milliseconds: QTc = QT + 154 × (1 − RR). Linear correction from 5,018 Framingham Heart Study subjects.

Hodges (1983)

QTc = QT + 1.75 × (HR − 60)   ·   QT in ms, HR in bpm

Linear in heart rate; a convenient bedside check. (Equivalent to QT + 0.00175 × (HR − 60) with QT in seconds.)

RR (seconds) = 60 / HR(bpm). At HR 60, RR = 1 s and every formula returns QTc = QT.

Worked example

QT = 400 ms, heart rate = 120 bpm → RR = 60/120 = 0.5 s:

At 60 bpm (RR = 1 s) all four give exactly 400.0 ms — a good sanity check for any implementation.

Which formula should I use?

Use Bazett when you need comparability with published cutoffs, drug labels, and automated ECG reports. Also check Fridericia whenever the heart rate is below 60 or above 100 bpm — when the two disagree substantially, Fridericia usually reflects reality better. Framingham is a solid independent cross-check, and Hodges works as a quick mental estimate.

Medical disclaimer: educational reference only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment guidance. QTc interpretation requires the full clinical picture. Discuss results with a qualified healthcare professional.

Frequently asked questions

What is the QTc interval?

The QTc is the QT interval corrected for heart rate. The raw QT interval on an ECG shortens when the heart beats faster and lengthens when it beats slower, so a correction formula normalizes every measurement to a reference rate of 60 beats per minute. That makes QT values comparable across different heart rates and lets clinicians judge whether repolarization is normal or prolonged.

Which QTc formula should I use: Bazett, Fridericia, Framingham, or Hodges?

Bazett (1920) is the most widely reported, but it overcorrects at fast heart rates and undercorrects at slow ones. Fridericia (1920) uses the cube root of RR and is more stable at rate extremes; regulators favor it in thorough QT drug studies. Framingham (Sagie et al., 1992) is a linear correction derived from 5,018 Framingham Heart Study subjects and behaves much like Fridericia. Hodges (1983) is also linear and handy as a quick mental check. A practical rule: use Bazett for comparability, and always glance at Fridericia when the rate is outside 60 to 100 bpm. Example: QT 400 ms at 120 bpm gives Bazett 565.7 ms, Fridericia 504.0 ms, Framingham 477.0 ms, Hodges 505.0 ms.

What are normal QTc values for men and women?

Per the AHA/ACCF/HRS 2009 recommendations: prolonged QT is longer than 450 ms in men and 460 ms or longer in women; a QTc of 390 ms or shorter is considered short in both sexes. A newer AHA/ACCF statement uses 99th percentile cutoffs above 470 ms (men) and above 480 ms (women), with values at or above 500 ms considered highly abnormal and carrying elevated torsades de pointes risk. This calculator labels 450 to 470 ms in men and 460 to 480 ms in women as borderline.

Why does the Bazett formula overcorrect at high heart rates?

Bazett divides QT by the square root of the RR interval, a curve fitted to only 39 young subjects in 1920. At fast rates the square-root correction shrinks the denominator too aggressively, inflating QTc; at slow rates it does the opposite. The Framingham investigators showed this directly: Bazett overcorrects at fast heart rates and undercorrects at low heart rates, which is why linear or cube-root corrections are preferred when the rate is far from 60 bpm.

How are the QT interval and RR interval measured on an ECG?

The QT interval runs from the start of the Q wave to the end of the T wave, usually measured in lead II or V5/V6, in milliseconds. The RR interval is the time between two consecutive R-wave peaks, also in milliseconds; heart rate equals 60,000 divided by the RR interval in ms. Enter either value: this calculator converts between heart rate and RR interval automatically (RR in seconds = 60 / heart rate).

What does a QTc above 500 ms mean?

A QTc of 500 ms or longer is considered markedly prolonged and is associated with a substantially elevated risk of torsades de pointes, a life-threatening arrhythmia. Values in this range, or a sudden increase of more than 60 ms from baseline, warrant urgent clinical review, especially when QT-prolonging drugs or electrolyte disturbances are involved. Do not delay care while rechecking numbers.

Can I enter the RR interval instead of the heart rate?

Yes. Switch the input mode to RR interval and enter the value in milliseconds; the calculator derives the heart rate as 60,000 divided by RR. Both modes feed the same four formulas. Example: QT 360 ms at 75 bpm (RR 800 ms) gives Bazett 402.5 ms, Fridericia 387.8 ms, Framingham 390.8 ms, and Hodges 386.2 ms.

Is this QTc calculator a substitute for medical advice?

No. It is an educational reference that performs arithmetic only. A QTc number never replaces a clinician reading the full ECG in context, including QRS width, electrolytes, medications, and symptoms. Always discuss results with a qualified healthcare professional, and seek urgent care for concerning symptoms rather than relying on any calculator output.

References (primary sources)

  1. Bazett HC. An analysis of the time-relations of electrocardiograms. Heart. 1920;7:353–370.
  2. Fridericia LS. Die Systolendauer im Elektrokardiogramm bei normalen Menschen und bei Herzkranken. Acta Med Scand. 1920;53:469–486.
  3. Sagie A, Larson MG, Goldberg RJ, Bengtson JR, Levy D. An improved method for adjusting the QT interval for heart rate (the Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 1992;70(7):797–801.
  4. Hodges M, Salerno D, Erlien D. Bazett's QT correction reviewed: evidence that a linear QT correction for heart rate is better. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983;1:694.
  5. Rautaharju PM, Surawicz B, Gettes LS. AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part IV. Circulation. 2009;119(10):e241–e250.

Free tool by NRTechStudio