Comparison of different electrocardiography with vectorcardiography transformations

dc.contributor.authorJaroš, René
dc.contributor.authorMartinek, Radek
dc.contributor.authorDanys, Lukáš
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-17T07:31:45Z
dc.date.available2019-10-17T07:31:45Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractThis paper deals with transformations from electrocardiographic (ECG) to vectorcardiographic (VCG) leads. VCG provides better sensitivity, for example for the detection of myocardial infarction, ischemia, and hypertrophy. However, in clinical practice, measurement of VCG is not usually used because it requires additional electrodes placed on the patient's body. Instead, mathematical transformations are used for deriving VCG from 12-leads ECG. In this work, Kors quasi-orthogonal transformation, inverse Dower transformation, Kors regression transformation, and linear regression-based transformations for deriving P wave (PLSV) and QRS complex (QLSV) are implemented and compared. These transformation methods were not yet compared before, so we have selected them for this paper. Transformation methods were compared for the data from the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) database and their accuracy was evaluated using a mean squared error (MSE) and a correlation coefficient (R) between the derived and directly measured Frank's leads. Based on the statistical analysis, Kors regression transformation was significantly more accurate for the derivation of the X and Y leads than the others. For the Z lead, there were no statistically significant differences in the medians between Kors regression transformation and the PLSV and QLSV methods. This paper thoroughly compared multiple VCG transformation methods to conventional VCG Frank's orthogonal lead system, used in clinical practice.cs
dc.description.firstpageart. no. 3072cs
dc.description.issue14cs
dc.description.sourceWeb of Sciencecs
dc.description.volume19cs
dc.identifier.citationSensors. 2019, vol. 19, issue 14, art. no. 3072.cs
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/s19143072
dc.identifier.issn1424-8220
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10084/138867
dc.identifier.wos000479160300040
dc.language.isoencs
dc.publisherMDPIcs
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSensorscs
dc.relation.urihttp://doi.org/10.3390/s19143072cs
dc.rights© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.cs
dc.rights.accessopenAccesscs
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/cs
dc.subjectelectrocardiographycs
dc.subjectvectorcardiographycs
dc.subjecttransformationcs
dc.subjectFrank’s leadscs
dc.subjectKors transformationcs
dc.subjectdower transformationcs
dc.subjectquasi-orthogonal leadscs
dc.subjectleast-squares fit methodcs
dc.titleComparison of different electrocardiography with vectorcardiography transformationscs
dc.typearticlecs
dc.type.statusPeer-reviewedcs
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioncs

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 out of 1 results
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1424-8220-2019v19i14an3072.pdf
Size:
2.08 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 out of 1 results
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: