Literature DB >> 20691320

Differences in QRS axis measurements, classification of inferior myocardial infarction, and noise tolerance for 12-lead electrocardiograms acquired from monitoring electrode positions compared to standard locations.

Annika Welinder1, Galen S Wagner, Charles Maynard, Olle Pahlm.   

Abstract

We tested whether the "Lund" (LU) electrode-placement system compared to the Mason-Likar (M-L) electrode-placement system would produce waveforms more similar to those of standard electrocardiograms (ECGs) with regard to the QRS axis in the frontal plane and QRS changes of inferior myocardial infarction (MI). We also tested whether LU was more noise immune than standard, and whether the noise immunities of the LU and M-L systems were comparable. Four 12-lead ECGs were recorded in 80 patients-2 standard ECGs, 1 LU ECG, and 1 M-L ECG. Further, 6 ECGs were recorded for 11 patients and 9 healthy volunteers-2 standard, 2 LU, and 2 M-L ECGs-while the subjects performed limb movements. Three electrocardiographic readers made blinded assessments of noise levels. QRS scores in patients with inferior MI differed significantly between standard and M-L ECGs but not between standard and LU ECGs. Few of those without QRS changes of MI received QRS scores, but not more often on LU ECGs than on standard ECGs, and never on M-L ECGs. QRS axis differences were small between standard and LU ECGs, but large between standard and M-L ECGs. The LU system was significantly more noise immune than the standard, whereas the difference in noise immunity between the M-L and LU systems was not significant. In conclusion, the results indicate that LU might constitute a uniform convention for "diagnostic" ECGs and for monitoring electrocardiographic applications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20691320     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  2017 ISHNE-HRS expert consensus statement on ambulatory ECG and external cardiac monitoring/telemetry.

Authors:  Jonathan S Steinberg; Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Peter Aziz; Paweł Balsam; Adrian Baranchuk; Daniel J Cantillon; Polychronis Dilaveris; Sergio J Dubner; Nabil El-Sherif; Jaroslaw Krol; Malgorzata Kurpesa; Maria Teresa La Rovere; Suave S Lobodzinski; Emanuela T Locati; Suneet Mittal; Brian Olshansky; Ewa Piotrowicz; Leslie Saxon; Peter H Stone; Larisa Tereshchenko; Mintu P Turakhia; Gioia Turitto; Neil J Wimmer; Richard L Verrier; Wojciech Zareba; Ryszard Piotrowicz
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 2.  12-lead Holter electrocardiography. Review of the literature and clinical application update.

Authors:  Li Su; Stefan Borov; Bernhard Zrenner
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-06-19

Review 3.  ECG monitoring leads and special leads.

Authors:  Johnson Francis
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2016-07-17

Review 4.  Cardiac monitoring for patients with palpitations.

Authors:  Jaume Francisco-Pascual; Javier Cantalapiedra-Romero; Jordi Pérez-Rodon; Begoña Benito; Alba Santos-Ortega; Jenson Maldonado; Ignacio Ferreira-Gonzalez; Nuria Rivas-Gándara
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2021-11-26
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.