Audited 27 Jul 2026·Last updated 28 Oct 2026·6 citations·Tier 1·0 uses

QTc Calculator

Correct a measured QT interval for heart rate with Bazett, Fridericia, Framingham and Hodges side by side, from heart rate or a measured RR interval.

QTc Calculator

Correction formula
QTc (Bazett)
402.4922
QT corrected by Bazett's formula, QT ÷ √RR, in milliseconds; overcorrects at fast heart rates, and is a calculation that supports, not replaces, clinical ECG review.
RR interval
0.8
QTc (Fridericia)
387.7982
QTc (Framingham)
390.8
QTc (Hodges)
386.25
Selected primary QTc
402.4922

Background.

A QT interval of 360 milliseconds means one thing at a heart rate of 60 and something quite different at 100. The QT, measured on an electrocardiogram from the start of the QRS complex to the end of the T wave, spans the time the heart's ventricles take to activate electrically and then recover. Recovery speeds up as the heart speeds up, so the raw QT shortens at fast rates and lengthens at slow ones. To compare one tracing with another, or with a reference limit, clinicians convert it to a corrected QT, the QTc: an estimate of what the QT would be at 60 beats per minute.

There is no single agreed way to do that conversion. Henry Bazett in England and Louis Sigurd Fridericia in Denmark each proposed one in 1920. The Framingham Heart Study group under Sagie published a linear correction in 1992, and Hodges and colleagues a heart-rate-based one in 1983. All four agree exactly at 60 beats per minute and drift apart as the rate moves away from it. At 75 beats per minute a QT of 360 ms becomes 402.5 ms by Bazett but 387.8 ms by Fridericia; at 100 beats per minute the gap between those two widens to almost 38 ms.

That spread is why the calculator always works out all four and labels each one. Many ECG machines print a Bazett QTc by default, while drug-safety studies and many clinicians prefer Fridericia or one of the linear formulas, particularly at fast heart rates, where Bazett is known to overcorrect. You can choose which formula fills the 'Selected primary QTc' line, and the other three remain on screen for comparison.

The arithmetic is only as sound as the QT you enter. Measuring where the T wave ends is a judgement, and U waves, a wide QRS, pacing and irregular rhythms all make it harder. A QTc worked out here is a check on a reading, to be interpreted alongside the tracing, symptoms, medicines and electrolytes; it supports clinical judgement and does not replace it.

What is qtc calculator?

The QT interval is the time from the beginning of ventricular depolarisation, the start of the QRS complex, to the end of repolarisation, the end of the T wave, usually measured in milliseconds in a lead where the T wave ends clearly, often lead II or V5. The RR interval is the time between successive heartbeats; with a regular rhythm it equals 60 divided by the heart rate in beats per minute, so 75 beats per minute gives 0.8 seconds. A corrected QT expresses the measured QT as if the RR interval were 1 second, the RR at 60 beats per minute. Bazett and Fridericia do this by dividing by a power of RR, the square root and the cube root respectively; Framingham and Hodges add or subtract a fixed amount per unit of RR or heart rate. The QTc is a derived figure, not something read directly off the tracing, which is why the formula used should always be stated with it.

How to use this calculator.

  1. Enter the measured QT in milliseconds, between 200 and 800. On standard ECG paper running at 25 mm/s, each small square is 40 ms and each large square 200 ms; take the QT from a lead where the end of the T wave is clear.
  2. Enter the heart rate in beats per minute. The calculator converts it to an RR interval of 60 ÷ rate seconds.
  3. If you measured the RR interval directly from the beats preceding the QT you measured, enter it in seconds in the optional RR field; four large squares at 25 mm/s is 0.8 seconds. Any value above 0 replaces the heart rate in all four formulas, including Hodges, which then uses 60 ÷ RR as its rate. Leave it at 0 to use the heart rate.
  4. Choose the formula for the 'Selected primary QTc' line, or leave it on All formulas, which places Bazett there. The four individual results are shown whichever you choose.
  5. Compare the results with the QTc printed on the ECG, and have any long or unexpected value reviewed by a clinician with the tracing in hand.

The formula.

QTc = QT ⁄ √RR

First RR = 60 ÷ HR seconds, unless a measured RR is supplied. Then, with QT in milliseconds and RR in seconds: Bazett QTc = QT ÷ √RR. Fridericia QTc = QT ÷ ∛RR. Framingham QTc = QT + 154 × (1 − RR). Hodges QTc = QT + 1.75 × (HR − 60). At RR = 1 second, a heart rate of 60, every formula returns the QT unchanged. Away from 60 they diverge because they model the QT-to-rate relationship differently. Bazett's square root makes the correction steep: at fast rates RR is small, its square root is smaller still relative to the cube root, and dividing by it inflates the QTc, so Bazett tends to overcorrect in tachycardia and undercorrect in bradycardia. Fridericia's cube root is gentler. Framingham adds 154 ms for every second the RR falls short of 1 second, a straight line fitted to Framingham Heart Study participants. Hodges adds 1.75 ms for every beat per minute above 60. None of the formulas fully removes the effect of rate in every person: the QT adapts to a change in rate over a minute or more rather than instantly, and individuals differ in how steeply their QT follows their RR. In the example the RR is 0.8 s, so √0.8 = 0.8944 and ∛0.8 = 0.9283, which is why Bazett gives the highest value of the four.

A worked example.

Example

A tracing shows a QT of 360 ms at a regular heart rate of 75 beats per minute. The RR interval is 60 ÷ 75 = 0.8 s. Bazett divides by √0.8 = 0.8944: 360 ÷ 0.8944 = 402.4922 ms, shown as 402.5. Fridericia divides by ∛0.8 = 0.9283: 360 ÷ 0.9283 = 387.7982 ms. Framingham adds 154 × (1 − 0.8) = 30.8 ms, giving 390.8 ms. Hodges adds 1.75 × (75 − 60) = 26.25 ms, giving 386.25 ms. With All formulas selected, the primary line repeats the Bazett value, 402.4922 ms. The four answers span about 16 ms at this rate. Push the rate up and they separate further. A QT of 300 ms at 120 beats per minute (RR 0.5 s) gives Bazett 424.3 ms, Hodges 405 ms, Fridericia 378.0 ms and Framingham 377 ms, a spread of more than 47 ms from the same tracing. At slow rates the order flips. A QT of 460 ms at 50 beats per minute (RR 1.2 s) gives Hodges 442.5 ms, Fridericia 432.9 ms, Framingham 429.2 ms and Bazett 419.9 ms, so Bazett now reads lowest and could make a long QT in a slow heart look shorter than the other formulas suggest.

heart Rate Bpm75
qt Ms360

Frequently asked questions.

Which correction formula should I rely on?
Use the one your institution, ECG system or drug protocol specifies, and state it with the number. Bazett is the most familiar and is common on ECG printouts, but it overcorrects at fast heart rates and undercorrects at slow ones. Fridericia, Framingham and Hodges depend less on rate across the usual range, which is why drug-safety studies and many clinicians prefer them when the heart rate is well away from 60.
Why does Bazett give the highest number in the example?
Because at 75 beats per minute the RR interval, 0.8 s, is below 1 and Bazett divides by its square root, 0.8944, while Fridericia divides by the larger cube root, 0.9283. Dividing by a smaller number gives a bigger result: 402.5 against 387.8 ms. Below 60 beats per minute the RR exceeds 1 and the order reverses, with Bazett giving the lowest value.
Why do all four formulas give the same answer at 60 beats per minute?
Each is built to return the measured QT when the RR interval is exactly 1 second. At that point √1 and ∛1 both equal 1, Framingham's term 154 × (1 − 1) is zero, and Hodges' term 1.75 × (60 − 60) is zero. A QT of 400 ms at 60 beats per minute is a QTc of 400 ms by every formula; differences appear only as the rate moves away.
When should I enter a measured RR interval instead of the heart rate?
When the heart rate printed on the ECG is an average over the whole strip but the QT you measured belongs to particular beats. The RR interval just before the measured beat is the one that shaped its QT. Entering it, say 0.84 s, makes all four formulas use it; Hodges then works from 60 ÷ 0.84 = 71.4 beats per minute and gives 380 ms for a 360 ms QT.
Why is my QTc different from the one the ECG machine printed?
The machine measures the QT itself, usually across several leads with its own algorithm, and applies its own default formula, often Bazett. A hand measurement from one lead can differ from it by tens of milliseconds, particularly when the T wave is flat or merges with a U wave. If the two disagree, the tracing should be re-read rather than either number trusted.
Where exactly does the T wave end?
That is the most disputed point in QT measurement. A widely taught approach is the tangent method: draw a line along the steepest part of the T wave's downslope and take the end of the T wave where that line meets the baseline. It avoids chasing a tail that fades slowly into the baseline. A U wave, a small bump after the T wave, should be left out unless it merges with the T wave.
Does an irregular rhythm such as atrial fibrillation change how I should use this?
It makes the inputs uncertain. In atrial fibrillation each beat follows a different RR interval, so a single heart rate does not describe the conditions any one QT was recorded under. A common approach is to measure several beats and average the QT and RR values before correcting, but interpreting QTc in irregular rhythms is a task for someone reviewing the full tracing.
What about a wide QRS, bundle branch block or pacing?
Then part of the QT reflects slow activation rather than recovery, so the QT, and every QTc derived from it, overstates repolarisation time. Clinicians use adjusted measures in these situations, such as the JT interval, which starts at the end of the QRS. None of the four formulas here compensates for a wide QRS.
What can lengthen the QT interval?
Many medicines, including some antiarrhythmics, antibiotics, antipsychotics, antidepressants and anti-nausea drugs; low potassium, magnesium or calcium; slow heart rates; and inherited long QT syndromes. Checking potassium and magnesium is routine when a long QT turns up. Women have slightly longer QTc values than men on average. A markedly prolonged QT raises the risk of torsades de pointes, a dangerous ventricular rhythm, which is why psychiatric and cardiology guidance asks for ECG monitoring with some drugs.
Can a QTc from this calculator rule out long QT syndrome?
No. Inherited long QT syndrome is diagnosed from repeated ECGs, symptoms such as fainting, family history and often genetic testing, and some affected people have a normal QTc on a single tracing. A calculated QTc can flag a reading for attention, but neither a normal nor a long value settles the diagnosis without specialist review.

How this page was produced

Published by
Quanta Calculator
Primary sources
6 cited below
Method
QTc = QT ⁄ √RR
Published
Last verified

Built with AI assistance and verified by automated tests against the cited sources — every worked example on this page is computed by the same code that runs the calculator. How we build and check calculators.

In this category

Embed

Quanta Pro

Paid features are coming later.

  • All 1560 calculators remain free
  • No billing is enabled
Coming soon