By Topic

Comparison of atrial signal extraction algorithms in 12-lead ECGs with atrial fibrillation

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

6 Author(s)
Langley, P. ; Cardiovascular Phys. & Eng. Res. Group, Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ; Rieta, J.J. ; Stridh, M. ; Millet, J.
more authors

Analysis of atrial rhythm is important in the treatment and management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Several algorithms exist for extracting the atrial signal from the electrocardiogram (ECG) in atrial fibrillation, but there are few reports on how well these techniques are able to recover the atrial signal. We assessed and compared three algorithms for extracting the atrial signal from the 12-lead ECG. The 12-lead ECGs of 30 patients in atrial fibrillation were analyzed. Atrial activity was extracted by three algorithms, Spatiotemporal QRST cancellation (STC), principal component analysis (PCA), and independent component analysis (ICA). The amplitude and frequency characteristics of the extracted atrial signals were compared between algorithms and against reference data. Mean (standard deviation) amplitude of QRST segments of V1 was 0.99 (0.54) mV, compared to 0.18 (0.11) mV (STC), 0.19 (0.13) mV (PCA), and 0.29 (0.22) mV (ICA). Hence, for all algorithms there were significant reductions in the amplitude of the ventricular activity compared with that in V1. Reference atrial signal amplitude in V1 was 0.18 (0.11) mV, compared to 0.17 (0.10) mV (STC), 0.12 (0.09) mV (PCA), and 0.18 (0.13) mV (ICA) in the extracted atrial signals. PCA tended to attenuate the atrial signal in these segments. There were no significant differences for any of the algorithms when comparing the amplitude of the reference atrial signal with that of the extracted atrial signals in segments in which ventricular activity had been removed. There were no significant differences between algorithms in the frequency characteristics of the extracted atrial signals. There were discrepancies in amplitude and frequency characteristics of the atrial signal in only a few cases resulting from notable residual ventricular activity for PCA and ICA algorithms. In conclusion, the extracted atrial signals from these algorithms exhibit very similar amplitude and frequency characteristics. Users of these - - algorithms should be observant of residual ventricular activities which can affect the analysis of the fibrillatory waveform in clinical practice.

Published in:

Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:53 ,  Issue: 2 )