BACKGROUND Despite the strong evidence of the clinical utility of QTc prolongation as a surrogate marker of cardiac risk, QTc measurement is not part of clinical routine either in hospital or in physician offices. We evaluated a novel device ("the QT scale") to measure heart rate (HR) and QTc interval. METHODS The QT scale is a weight scale embedding an ECG acquisition system with four limb sensors (feet and hands: lead I, II, and III). We evaluated the reliability of QT scale in healthy subjects (cohort 1) and cardiac patients (cohorts 2 and 3) considering a learning (cohort 2) and two validation cohorts. The QT scale and the standard 12-lead recorder were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in cohorts 2 and 3. Absolute value of heart rate and QTc intervals between manual and automatic measurements using ECGs from the QT scale and a clinical device were compared in cohort 1. RESULTS We enrolled 16 subjects in cohort 1 (8 w, 8 m; 32 ± 8 vs 34 ± 10 years, P = 0.7), 51 patients in cohort 2 (13 w, 38 m; 61 ± 16 vs 58 ± 18 years, P = 0.6), and 13 AF patients in cohort 3 (4 w, 9 m; 63 ± 10 vs 64 ± 10 years, P = 0.9). Similar automatic heart rate and QTc were delivered by the scale and the clinical device in cohort 1: paired difference in RR and QTc were -7 ± 34 milliseconds (P = 0.37) and 3.4 ± 28.6 milliseconds (P = 0.64), respectively. The measurement of stability was slightly lower in ECG from the QT scale than from the clinical device (ICC: 91% vs 80%) in cohort 3. CONCLUSIONS The "QT scale device" delivers valid heart rate and QTc interval measurements.