Advertisement

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

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kligfield P.
        • Gettes L.S.
        • Bailey J.J.
        • Childers R.
        • Deal B.J.
        • Hancock E.W.
        • van Herpen G.
        • Kors J.A.
        • Macfarlane P.
        • Mirvis D.M.
        • Pahlm O.
        • Rautaharju P.
        • Wagner G.S.
        Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part I: the electrocardiogram and its technology: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology.
        Circulation. 2007; 115: 1306-1324
        • Mason R.E.
        • Likar I.
        A new system of multiple-lead exercise electrocardiography.
        Am Heart J. 1966; 71: 196-205
        • Papouchado M.
        • Walker P.R.
        • James M.A.
        • Clarke L.M.
        Fundamental differences between the standard 12-lead electrocardiograph and the modified (Mason-Likar) exercise lead system.
        Eur Heart J. 1987; 8: 725-733
        • Edenbrandt L.
        • Pahlm O.
        • Sörnmo L.
        An accurate exercise lead system for bicycle ergometer tests.
        Eur Heart J. 1989; 10: 268-272
        • Farrell R.M.
        • Syed A.
        • Syed A.
        • Gutterman D.D.
        Effects of limb electrode placement on the 12- and 16-lead electrocardiogram.
        J Electrocardiol. 2008; 41: 536-545
        • Pahlm O.
        • Wagner G.S.
        Potential solutions for providing standard electrocardiogram recordings from nonstandard recording sites.
        J Electrocardiol. 2008; 41: 207-210
        • Sevilla D.C.
        • Wagner N.B.
        • Pegues R.
        • Peck S.
        • Mikat E.
        • Ideker R.
        • Hutchins G.
        • Reimer K.
        • Hackel D.
        • Selvester R.
        • Wagner G.S.
        Correlation of the complete version of the Selvester QRS scoring system with quantitative anatomic findings for multiple left ventricular myocardial infarcts.
        Am J Cardiol. 1992; 69: 465-469
        • Macfarlane P.W.
        Evolution of the Glasgow program for computer-assisted reporting of electrocardiograms—1964/1998.
        Acta Cardiol. 1998; 53: 117-120
        • Macfarlane P.W.
        • Devine B.
        • Clark E.
        The University of Glasgow (Uni-G) ECG analysis program.
        Comput Cardiol. 2005; 32: 451-454
        • Selvester R.H.
        • Wagner G.S.
        • Hindman N.B.
        The Selvester QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size.
        Arch Intern Med. 1985; 145: 1877-1881
        • Engblom H.
        • Wagner G.S.
        • Setser R.M.
        • Selvester R.H.
        • Billgren T.
        • Kasper J.M.
        • Maynard C.
        • Pahlm O.
        • Arheden H.
        • White R.D.
        Quantitative clinical assessment of chronic anterior myocardial infarction with delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging and QRS scoring.
        Am Heart J. 2003; 146: 359-366
        • Ideker R.E.
        • Wagner G.S.
        • Ruth W.K.
        • Alonso D.R.
        • Bishop S.P.
        • Bloor C.M.
        • Fallon J.T.
        • Gottlieb G.J.
        • Hackel D.B.
        • Phillips H.R.
        • Reimer K.A.
        • Roark S.F.
        • Rogers W.J.
        • Savage R.M.
        • White R.D.
        • Selvester R.H.
        Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size.
        Am J Cardiol. 1982; 49: 1604-1614
        • Roark S.F.
        • Ideker R.E.
        • Wagner G.S.
        • Alonso D.R.
        • Bishop S.P.
        • Bloor C.M.
        • Bramlet D.A.
        • Edwards J.E.
        • Fallon J.T.
        • Gottlieb G.J.
        • Hackel D.B.
        • Phillips H.R.
        • Reimer K.A.
        • Rogers W.J.
        • Ruth W.K.
        • Savage R.M.
        • White R.D.
        • Selvester R.H.
        Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size.
        Am J Cardiol. 1983; 51: 382-389
        • Ward R.M.
        • White R.D.
        • Ideker R.E.
        • Hindman N.B.
        • Alonso D.R.
        • Bishop S.P.
        • Bloor C.M.
        • Fallon J.T.
        • Gottlieb G.J.
        • Hackel D.B.
        • Hutchins G.M.
        • Phillips H.R.
        • Reimer K.A.
        • Roark S.F.
        • Rochlani S.P.
        • Rogers W.J.
        • Ruth W.K.
        • Savage R.M.
        • Weiss J.L.
        • Selvester R.H.
        • Wagner G.S.
        Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size.
        Am J Cardiol. 1984; 53: 706-714
        • Anderson W.D.
        • Wagner N.B.
        • Lee K.L.
        • White R.D.
        • Yuschak J.
        • Behar V.S.
        • Selvester R.H.
        • Ideker R.E.
        • Wagner G.S.
        Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size.
        Am J Cardiol. 1988; 61: 729-733
        • Wilson F.N.
        The distribution of the potential differences produced by the heart beat within the body and its surface.
        Am Heart J. 1930; 5: 599-616