Where do derived precordial leads fail?
Abstract A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) reconstructed from a reduced subset of leads is desired in continued arrhythmia and ST monitoring for less tangled wires and increased patient comfort. However, the impact of reconstructed 12-lead lead ECG on clinical ECG diagnosis has not been studied thor...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of electrocardiology 2008-11, Vol.41 (6), p.546-552 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 552 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 546 |
container_title | Journal of electrocardiology |
container_volume | 41 |
creator | Gregg, Richard E., MS Zhou, Sophia H., PhD Lindauer, James M., MD Feild, Dirk Q., MA Helfenbein, Eric D., MS |
description | Abstract A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) reconstructed from a reduced subset of leads is desired in continued arrhythmia and ST monitoring for less tangled wires and increased patient comfort. However, the impact of reconstructed 12-lead lead ECG on clinical ECG diagnosis has not been studied thoroughly. This study compares the differences between recorded and reconstructed 12-lead diagnostic ECG interpretation with 2 commonly used configurations: reconstruct precordial leads V2 , V3 , V5 , and V6 from V1 ,V4 , or reconstruct V1 , V3 , V4 , and V6 from V2 ,V5 . Limb leads are recorded in both configurations. A total of 1785 ECGs were randomly selected from a large database of 50000 ECGs consecutively collected from 2 teaching hospitals. ECGs with extreme artifact and paced rhythm were excluded. Manual ECG annotations by 2 cardiologists were categorized and used in testing. The Philips resting 12-lead ECG algorithm was used to generate computer measurements and interpretations for comparison. Results were compared for both arrhythmia and morphology categories with high prevalence interpretations including atrial fibrillation, anterior myocardial infarct, right bundle-branch block, left bundle-branch block, left atrial enlargement, and left ventricular hypertrophy. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each reconstruction configuration in these arrhythmia and morphology categories. Compared to recorded 12-leads, the V2 ,V5 lead configuration shows weakness in interpretations where V1 is important such as atrial arrhythmia, atrial enlargement, and bundle-branch blocks. The V1 ,V4 lead configuration shows a decreased sensitivity in detection of anterior myocardial infarct, left bundle-branch block (LBBB), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In conclusion, reconstructed precordial leads are not equivalent to recorded leads for clinical ECG diagnoses especially in ECGs presenting rhythm and morphology abnormalities. In addition, significant accuracy reduction in ECG interpretation is not strongly correlated with waveform differences between reconstructed and recorded 12-lead ECGs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2008.07.018 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69715241</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0022073608002665</els_id><sourcerecordid>69715241</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-36e693d288fbc394e124d7a81836ecbe628aaed3c47e25fd76083cbe7748be843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUtrGzEQgEVoSZzHXwhLDu1ptzPSWtLm0FLyaiHQQxJyFLI0S7SVva5kB_LvK2OThpx6ktB889A3jJ0hNAgovwzNQJHcKo3OJt9wAN2AagD1HpvgVPBatwI-sAkA5zUoIQ_YYc4DAHRc8X12gFqj6jhO2OfHJ0pU-bHylMIz-WqZyI3JBxurSNbnqrchfjtmH3sbM53sziP2cH11f_Gjvv118_Pi-23tWgmrWkiSnfBc637mRNcS8tYrq1GXiJuR5Npa8sK1ivi090qCFuVdqVbPqIx9xD5t6y7T-GdNeWXmITuK0S5oXGcjO4VT3mIBz96Bw7hOizKb4Sg5CkRRoPMt5NKYc6LeLFOY2_RiEMzGpRnMW5dm49KAMsVlST7ddVjP5uT_pe7kFeByC1AR8hwomewCLRz5UByujB_D__X5-q6Mi2ERnI2_6YXy67fQZG7A3G22ulkq6HKTcir-AvHXns4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216213113</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Where do derived precordial leads fail?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Gregg, Richard E., MS ; Zhou, Sophia H., PhD ; Lindauer, James M., MD ; Feild, Dirk Q., MA ; Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</creator><creatorcontrib>Gregg, Richard E., MS ; Zhou, Sophia H., PhD ; Lindauer, James M., MD ; Feild, Dirk Q., MA ; Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) reconstructed from a reduced subset of leads is desired in continued arrhythmia and ST monitoring for less tangled wires and increased patient comfort. However, the impact of reconstructed 12-lead lead ECG on clinical ECG diagnosis has not been studied thoroughly. This study compares the differences between recorded and reconstructed 12-lead diagnostic ECG interpretation with 2 commonly used configurations: reconstruct precordial leads V2 , V3 , V5 , and V6 from V1 ,V4 , or reconstruct V1 , V3 , V4 , and V6 from V2 ,V5 . Limb leads are recorded in both configurations. A total of 1785 ECGs were randomly selected from a large database of 50000 ECGs consecutively collected from 2 teaching hospitals. ECGs with extreme artifact and paced rhythm were excluded. Manual ECG annotations by 2 cardiologists were categorized and used in testing. The Philips resting 12-lead ECG algorithm was used to generate computer measurements and interpretations for comparison. Results were compared for both arrhythmia and morphology categories with high prevalence interpretations including atrial fibrillation, anterior myocardial infarct, right bundle-branch block, left bundle-branch block, left atrial enlargement, and left ventricular hypertrophy. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each reconstruction configuration in these arrhythmia and morphology categories. Compared to recorded 12-leads, the V2 ,V5 lead configuration shows weakness in interpretations where V1 is important such as atrial arrhythmia, atrial enlargement, and bundle-branch blocks. The V1 ,V4 lead configuration shows a decreased sensitivity in detection of anterior myocardial infarct, left bundle-branch block (LBBB), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In conclusion, reconstructed precordial leads are not equivalent to recorded leads for clinical ECG diagnoses especially in ECGs presenting rhythm and morphology abnormalities. In addition, significant accuracy reduction in ECG interpretation is not strongly correlated with waveform differences between reconstructed and recorded 12-lead ECGs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8430</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2008.07.018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18817921</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JECAB4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis ; Cardiovascular ; Diagnostic Errors - prevention & control ; Electrocardiography - instrumentation ; Electrocardiography - methods ; Humans ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Journal of electrocardiology, 2008-11, Vol.41 (6), p.546-552</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2008 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Nov/Dec 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-36e693d288fbc394e124d7a81836ecbe628aaed3c47e25fd76083cbe7748be843</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-36e693d288fbc394e124d7a81836ecbe628aaed3c47e25fd76083cbe7748be843</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/216213113?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18817921$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gregg, Richard E., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Sophia H., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindauer, James M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feild, Dirk Q., MA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</creatorcontrib><title>Where do derived precordial leads fail?</title><title>Journal of electrocardiology</title><addtitle>J Electrocardiol</addtitle><description>Abstract A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) reconstructed from a reduced subset of leads is desired in continued arrhythmia and ST monitoring for less tangled wires and increased patient comfort. However, the impact of reconstructed 12-lead lead ECG on clinical ECG diagnosis has not been studied thoroughly. This study compares the differences between recorded and reconstructed 12-lead diagnostic ECG interpretation with 2 commonly used configurations: reconstruct precordial leads V2 , V3 , V5 , and V6 from V1 ,V4 , or reconstruct V1 , V3 , V4 , and V6 from V2 ,V5 . Limb leads are recorded in both configurations. A total of 1785 ECGs were randomly selected from a large database of 50000 ECGs consecutively collected from 2 teaching hospitals. ECGs with extreme artifact and paced rhythm were excluded. Manual ECG annotations by 2 cardiologists were categorized and used in testing. The Philips resting 12-lead ECG algorithm was used to generate computer measurements and interpretations for comparison. Results were compared for both arrhythmia and morphology categories with high prevalence interpretations including atrial fibrillation, anterior myocardial infarct, right bundle-branch block, left bundle-branch block, left atrial enlargement, and left ventricular hypertrophy. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each reconstruction configuration in these arrhythmia and morphology categories. Compared to recorded 12-leads, the V2 ,V5 lead configuration shows weakness in interpretations where V1 is important such as atrial arrhythmia, atrial enlargement, and bundle-branch blocks. The V1 ,V4 lead configuration shows a decreased sensitivity in detection of anterior myocardial infarct, left bundle-branch block (LBBB), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In conclusion, reconstructed precordial leads are not equivalent to recorded leads for clinical ECG diagnoses especially in ECGs presenting rhythm and morphology abnormalities. In addition, significant accuracy reduction in ECG interpretation is not strongly correlated with waveform differences between reconstructed and recorded 12-lead ECGs.</description><subject>Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cardiovascular</subject><subject>Diagnostic Errors - prevention & control</subject><subject>Electrocardiography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Electrocardiography - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0022-0736</issn><issn>1532-8430</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkUtrGzEQgEVoSZzHXwhLDu1ptzPSWtLm0FLyaiHQQxJyFLI0S7SVva5kB_LvK2OThpx6ktB889A3jJ0hNAgovwzNQJHcKo3OJt9wAN2AagD1HpvgVPBatwI-sAkA5zUoIQ_YYc4DAHRc8X12gFqj6jhO2OfHJ0pU-bHylMIz-WqZyI3JBxurSNbnqrchfjtmH3sbM53sziP2cH11f_Gjvv118_Pi-23tWgmrWkiSnfBc637mRNcS8tYrq1GXiJuR5Npa8sK1ivi090qCFuVdqVbPqIx9xD5t6y7T-GdNeWXmITuK0S5oXGcjO4VT3mIBz96Bw7hOizKb4Sg5CkRRoPMt5NKYc6LeLFOY2_RiEMzGpRnMW5dm49KAMsVlST7ddVjP5uT_pe7kFeByC1AR8hwomewCLRz5UByujB_D__X5-q6Mi2ERnI2_6YXy67fQZG7A3G22ulkq6HKTcir-AvHXns4</recordid><startdate>20081101</startdate><enddate>20081101</enddate><creator>Gregg, Richard E., MS</creator><creator>Zhou, Sophia H., PhD</creator><creator>Lindauer, James M., MD</creator><creator>Feild, Dirk Q., MA</creator><creator>Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20081101</creationdate><title>Where do derived precordial leads fail?</title><author>Gregg, Richard E., MS ; Zhou, Sophia H., PhD ; Lindauer, James M., MD ; Feild, Dirk Q., MA ; Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c460t-36e693d288fbc394e124d7a81836ecbe628aaed3c47e25fd76083cbe7748be843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cardiovascular</topic><topic>Diagnostic Errors - prevention & control</topic><topic>Electrocardiography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Electrocardiography - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gregg, Richard E., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Sophia H., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindauer, James M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feild, Dirk Q., MA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of electrocardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gregg, Richard E., MS</au><au>Zhou, Sophia H., PhD</au><au>Lindauer, James M., MD</au><au>Feild, Dirk Q., MA</au><au>Helfenbein, Eric D., MS</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Where do derived precordial leads fail?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of electrocardiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Electrocardiol</addtitle><date>2008-11-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>546</spage><epage>552</epage><pages>546-552</pages><issn>0022-0736</issn><eissn>1532-8430</eissn><coden>JECAB4</coden><abstract>Abstract A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) reconstructed from a reduced subset of leads is desired in continued arrhythmia and ST monitoring for less tangled wires and increased patient comfort. However, the impact of reconstructed 12-lead lead ECG on clinical ECG diagnosis has not been studied thoroughly. This study compares the differences between recorded and reconstructed 12-lead diagnostic ECG interpretation with 2 commonly used configurations: reconstruct precordial leads V2 , V3 , V5 , and V6 from V1 ,V4 , or reconstruct V1 , V3 , V4 , and V6 from V2 ,V5 . Limb leads are recorded in both configurations. A total of 1785 ECGs were randomly selected from a large database of 50000 ECGs consecutively collected from 2 teaching hospitals. ECGs with extreme artifact and paced rhythm were excluded. Manual ECG annotations by 2 cardiologists were categorized and used in testing. The Philips resting 12-lead ECG algorithm was used to generate computer measurements and interpretations for comparison. Results were compared for both arrhythmia and morphology categories with high prevalence interpretations including atrial fibrillation, anterior myocardial infarct, right bundle-branch block, left bundle-branch block, left atrial enlargement, and left ventricular hypertrophy. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each reconstruction configuration in these arrhythmia and morphology categories. Compared to recorded 12-leads, the V2 ,V5 lead configuration shows weakness in interpretations where V1 is important such as atrial arrhythmia, atrial enlargement, and bundle-branch blocks. The V1 ,V4 lead configuration shows a decreased sensitivity in detection of anterior myocardial infarct, left bundle-branch block (LBBB), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In conclusion, reconstructed precordial leads are not equivalent to recorded leads for clinical ECG diagnoses especially in ECGs presenting rhythm and morphology abnormalities. In addition, significant accuracy reduction in ECG interpretation is not strongly correlated with waveform differences between reconstructed and recorded 12-lead ECGs.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>18817921</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2008.07.018</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-0736 |
ispartof | Journal of electrocardiology, 2008-11, Vol.41 (6), p.546-552 |
issn | 0022-0736 1532-8430 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69715241 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | Arrhythmias, Cardiac - diagnosis Cardiovascular Diagnostic Errors - prevention & control Electrocardiography - instrumentation Electrocardiography - methods Humans Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity |
title | Where do derived precordial leads fail? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T10%3A59%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Where%20do%20derived%20precordial%20leads%20fail?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20electrocardiology&rft.au=Gregg,%20Richard%20E.,%20MS&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=546&rft.epage=552&rft.pages=546-552&rft.issn=0022-0736&rft.eissn=1532-8430&rft.coden=JECAB4&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2008.07.018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69715241%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216213113&rft_id=info:pmid/18817921&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0022073608002665&rfr_iscdi=true |