BACKGROUND: Surface electrocardiograms (ECGs) have been used as surrogates for subcutaneous ECGs to optimize and evaluate subcutaneous devices, but differences between surface and subcutaneous ECGs remain poorly understood. This study evaluated the correspondence between surface and subcutaneous ECGs in Reveal Plus (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) patients during various maneuvers. METHODS: Surface electrodes were placed over the Reveal electrodes of 48 subjects (23 men, age 60 +/- 14.3 years, body mass index 27 +/- 4.9 kg/m(2), implant time 45 +/- 29 weeks). Surface and subcutaneous ECGs were recorded simultaneously for 30 seconds during rest, isometric myopotential noise (pushing palms together), and artifact-inducing maneuvers (repetitive displacement of device, chest thumping on device, arm flaps, handshake, hallwalk). RESULTS: During rest, subcutaneous and surface ECGs were highly correlated (R = 0.96), had similar R-wave amplitude (487 +/- 40 vs 507 +/- 49 microV, NS), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (13.4 +/- 0.8 vs 13.5 +/- 0.7, NS). During myopotential noise, subcutaneous and surface ECGs were highly correlated (R = 0.91) and had similar SNR (10.0 +/- 0.6 vs 9.7 +/- 0.6, NS). During artifact-inducing maneuvers, subcutaneous and surface ECGs were less correlated (R = 0.82 displacement, 0.84 chest thumping, 0.93 arm flaps, 0.90 handshake, 0.92 hallwalk) with subcutaneous SNR significantly higher than surface (11.4 +/- 0.7 vs 9.9 +/- 0.7 displacement, 11.1 +/- 0.6 vs 8.4 +/- 0.6 chest thumping, 11.5 +/- 0.4 vs 10.3 +/- 0.5 arm flaps, 9.5 +/- 0.4 vs 8.4 +/- 0.4 handshake, 12.0 +/- 0.4 vs 10.0 +/- 0.4 hallwalk, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Surface ECGs are adequate surrogates for subcutaneous ECGs in situations free from motion artifacts but not in situations involving movement of the device, surface electrodes, or recording equipment. During artifact-inducing maneuvers, subcutaneous ECGs are of higher quality and less susceptible to artifacts than surface ECGs.
BACKGROUND: Surface electrocardiograms (ECGs) have been used as surrogates for subcutaneous ECGs to optimize and evaluate subcutaneous devices, but differences between surface and subcutaneous ECGs remain poorly understood. This study evaluated the correspondence between surface and subcutaneous ECGs in Reveal Plus (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) patients during various maneuvers. METHODS: Surface electrodes were placed over the Reveal electrodes of 48 subjects (23 men, age 60 +/- 14.3 years, body mass index 27 +/- 4.9 kg/m(2), implant time 45 +/- 29 weeks). Surface and subcutaneous ECGs were recorded simultaneously for 30 seconds during rest, isometric myopotential noise (pushing palms together), and artifact-inducing maneuvers (repetitive displacement of device, chest thumping on device, arm flaps, handshake, hallwalk). RESULTS: During rest, subcutaneous and surface ECGs were highly correlated (R = 0.96), had similar R-wave amplitude (487 +/- 40 vs 507 +/- 49 microV, NS), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (13.4 +/- 0.8 vs 13.5 +/- 0.7, NS). During myopotential noise, subcutaneous and surface ECGs were highly correlated (R = 0.91) and had similar SNR (10.0 +/- 0.6 vs 9.7 +/- 0.6, NS). During artifact-inducing maneuvers, subcutaneous and surface ECGs were less correlated (R = 0.82 displacement, 0.84 chest thumping, 0.93 arm flaps, 0.90 handshake, 0.92 hallwalk) with subcutaneous SNR significantly higher than surface (11.4 +/- 0.7 vs 9.9 +/- 0.7 displacement, 11.1 +/- 0.6 vs 8.4 +/- 0.6 chest thumping, 11.5 +/- 0.4 vs 10.3 +/- 0.5 arm flaps, 9.5 +/- 0.4 vs 8.4 +/- 0.4 handshake, 12.0 +/- 0.4 vs 10.0 +/- 0.4 hallwalk, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Surface ECGs are adequate surrogates for subcutaneous ECGs in situations free from motion artifacts but not in situations involving movement of the device, surface electrodes, or recording equipment. During artifact-inducing maneuvers, subcutaneous ECGs are of higher quality and less susceptible to artifacts than surface ECGs.
Authors: Stephen R Carnahan; Steven C Koenig; Michael A Sobieski; Erin M Schumer; Gretel Monreal; Yu Wang; Young Choi; Brek J Meuris; Landon H Tompkins; Zhongjun J Wu; Mark S Slaughter; Guruprasad A Giridharan Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2017 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Rakesh Gopinathannair; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Muhammad R Afzal; Christopher Piorkowski; Fujian Qu; Fady Dawoud; Kevin Davis; Kyungmoo Ryu; John Ip Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Sanne Lotte Journée; Henricus Louis Journée; Stephen Michael Reed; Hanneke Irene Berends; Cornelis Marinus de Bruijn; Cathérine John Ghislaine Delesalle Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Gerrit Frommeyer; Dirk G Dechering; Sven Zumhagen; Andreas Löher; Julia Köbe; Lars Eckardt; Florian Reinke Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Matthew Swale; Vincent Paul; Sinny Delacroix; Glenn Young; Luke McSpadden; Kyungmoo Ryu; David Di Fiore; Maria Santos; Isabel Tan; Andre Conradie; MyNgan Duong; Nisha Schwarz; Stephen Worthley; Stephen Pavia Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 2.174
Authors: Andrew D Krahn; Robert A Pickett; Scott Sakaguchi; Naushad Shaik; Jian Cao; Holly S Norman; Patricia Guerrero Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 1.976