OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the informative value of a capacitively coupled electrocardiogram (cECG) to a conventional galvanic reference ECG (rECG) in patients after a major cardiac event under simulated driving conditions. Addressed research questions are the comparison and coherence of cECG and rECG by means of the signal quality, the artifact rate, the rate of assessable data for differential diagnosis, the visibility of characteristic ECG structures in cECG, the precision of ECG time intervals, and heart rate (in particular, despite possible waveform deformations due to the cardiac preconditions). METHODS: In a clinical trial, cECG and rECG data were recorded from ten patients after a major cardiac event. The cECG and rECG data were blindly evaluated by two cardiologists with regard to signal quality, artifacts, assessable data for differential diagnosis, visibility of ECG structures, and ECG time intervals. The results were statistically compared. RESULTS: The cECG presented with more artifacts, an inferior signal quality, and less assessable data. However, when the data were assessable, determination of the ECG interval lengths was coherent to the one obtained from the rECG. CONCLUSION: When the signal quality is sufficient, the cECG yields the same informative value as the rECG. SIGNIFICANCE: For certain scenarios, cECG might replace rECG systems. Hence, it is an important research question whether a similar amount of information can be obtained using a cECG system.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the informative value of a capacitively coupled electrocardiogram (cECG) to a conventional galvanic reference ECG (rECG) in patients after a major cardiac event under simulated driving conditions. Addressed research questions are the comparison and coherence of cECG and rECG by means of the signal quality, the artifact rate, the rate of assessable data for differential diagnosis, the visibility of characteristic ECG structures in cECG, the precision of ECG time intervals, and heart rate (in particular, despite possible waveform deformations due to the cardiac preconditions). METHODS: In a clinical trial, cECG and rECG data were recorded from ten patients after a major cardiac event. The cECG and rECG data were blindly evaluated by two cardiologists with regard to signal quality, artifacts, assessable data for differential diagnosis, visibility of ECG structures, and ECG time intervals. The results were statistically compared. RESULTS: The cECG presented with more artifacts, an inferior signal quality, and less assessable data. However, when the data were assessable, determination of the ECG interval lengths was coherent to the one obtained from the rECG. CONCLUSION: When the signal quality is sufficient, the cECG yields the same informative value as the rECG. SIGNIFICANCE: For certain scenarios, cECG might replace rECG systems. Hence, it is an important research question whether a similar amount of information can be obtained using a cECG system.