Impact of the high-frequency cutoff of bandpass filtering on ECG quality and clinical interpretation: A comparison between 40 Hz and 150 Hz cutoff in a surgical preoperative adult outpatient population

Journal of Electrocardiology

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 691-695

  Ricciardi, Danilo ^a   Cavallari, Ilaria ^a   Creta, Antonio ^a   Di Giovanni, Giacomo ^a   Calabrese, Vito ^a   Di Belardino, Natale ^b   Mega, Simona ^a   Colaiori, Iginio ^a   Ragni, Laura ^a   Proscia, Claudio ^a   Nenna, Antonio ^a   Di Sciascio, Germano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BIO MEDICO   (Italy)

^b Ospedali Riuniti Anzio Nettuno   (Italy)

Author keywords

Digital signal processing; ECG; High frequency ECG filtering; Left ventricular hypertrophy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE HYPERTROPHY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTPATIENT; P WAVE; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; Q WAVE; QRS COMPLEX; R WAVE; SIGNAL PROCESSING; ST SEGMENT; T WAVE; AMBULATORY CARE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICES; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; ITALY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVALENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; AMBULATORY CARE; ARRHYTHMIAS, CARDIAC; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREVALENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 84994493267     PISSN: 00220736     EISSN: 15328430     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. [1] Bailey, JJ, Berson, AS, Garson, A Jr., et al. Recommendations for standardization and specifications in automated electrocardiography: bandwidth and digital signal processing: a report for health professionals by an ad hoc writing group of the Committee On Electrocardiography and Cardiac Electrophysiology of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association. Circulation 81 (1990), 730–739.
2. [2] Kligfield, P, Gettes, LS, Bailey, JJ, et al. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 49 (2007), 1109–1127.
3. [3] Berson, AS, Pipberger, HV, The low-frequency response of electrocardiographs, a frequent source of recording errors. Am Heart J 71 (1966), 779–789.
4. [4] Bragg-Remschel, DA, Anderson, CM, Winkle, RA, Frequency response characteristics of ambulatory ECG monitoring systems and their implications for ST segment analysis. Am Heart J 103 (1982), 20–31.
5. [5] Garson, A Jr., Clinically significant differences between the “old” analog and the “new” digital electrocardiograms. Am Heart J 114 (1987), 194–197.
6. [6] Kligfield, P, Okin, PM, Prevalence and clinical implications of improper filter settings in routine electrocardiography. Am J Cardiol 99 (2007), 711–713.
7. [7] Thygesen, K, Alpert, JS, Jaffe, AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 60 (2012), 1581–1598.
8. [8] Macfarlane, PW, Antzelevitch, C, Haissaguerre, M, et al. The early repolarization pattern: a consensus paper. J Am Coll Cardiol 66:4 (2015), 470–477.
9. [9] Berson, AS, Pipberger, HV, Electrocardiographic distortions caused by inadequate high-frequency response of direct-writing electrocardiographs. Am Heart J 74 (1967), 208–218.
10. [10] Zywietz, C, Sampling rate of ECGs in relation to measurement accuracy. Wagner, GS, Scherlag, BG, Bailey, JJ, (eds.) Computerized interpretation of the electrocardiogram, 1986, Engineering Foundation, New York, 122–125.
11. [11] Luo, S, Johnston, P, A review of electrocardiogram filtering. J Electrocardiol 43 (2010), 486–496.
12. [12] Tompkins, WJ, (eds.) Design of microcomputer-based medical instrumentation, 1981, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
13. [13] Nakagawa, M, Tsunemitsu, C, Katoh, S, et al. Effect of ECG filter settings on J-waves. J Electrocardiol 47 (2014), 7–11.
14. [14] Take, Y, Morita, H, Fragmented QRS: what is the meaning?. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J 5 (2012), 213–225.
15. [15] Merchan, F, Noseworthy, P, Weiner, R, Ability of terminal QRS notching to distinguish from malignant electrocardiographic forms of early repolarization. Am J Cardiol 104:10 (2009), 1402–1406.
16. [16] Das, MK, Saha, C, El Masry, H, et al. Fragmented QRS on a 12-lead ECG: a predictor of mortality and cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease. Heart Rhythm 30:4(11) (2007), 1385–1392.
17. [17] Casiglia, E, Schiavon, L, Tikhonoff, V, et al. Electrocardiographic criteria of left ventricular hypertrophy in general population. Eur J Epidemiol 23 (2008), 261–271.
18. [18] Verdecchia, P, Dovellini, EV, Gorini M et al comparison of electrocardiographic criteria for diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertension: the MAVI study. Ital Heart J 1:3 (2000), 207–215.
19. [19] Luo, S, Johnston, P, Macfarlane, PW, Implanted cardiac pacemaker pulses as recorded from the body surface. J Electrocardiol 45 (2012), 663–669.