Originally Posted by Thedude86

The article ALPA posted a link to proves nothing. All it proves is that a paragraph without any specifics was posted in 2018. The video that does have the specifics was posted 5 months ago. Again, before the official October revision, the FAA’s own guide for AMEs states that .2 was the limit. If the video was posted any earlier then the FAA would be directly contradicting themselves.

I understand what marked means. What I’m saying is… someone with an ecg pr interval of .21 or greater would be treated differently October 25th or earlier compared to someone who had their ecg since October 26th.

and yes, marked doesn’t necessarily mean anything is wrong. It could be benign. But I point to the wingnuts at Harvard University as posted in my original post…

“a prolonged PR interval is most commonly seen in generally healthy, middle-aged to older adults and has been thought to reflect normal age-related changes. But previous investigations of the impact of PR prolongation were limited to younger, healthy participants, such as members of the military.”

“A PR interval of less than 200 milliseconds is considered normal, and participants whose interval was longer than 200 milliseconds had twice the overall risk of developing atrial fibrillation, three times the risk of needing a pacemaker, and almost one and a half times the risk of early death. Further prolongation of the PR interval led to even greater risk.”
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...diac-problems/

Someone above 200ms would not have been marked before October 26, 2022.