Do different averaging devices for non-invasive detection of ventricular late potentials yield concordant results in the same patients?
Different averaging devices for detecting ventricular late potentials show significant variability in results, primarily due to differences in interpretation methods and QRS end determination.
To evaluate the methodological problems of the non-invasive registration of late potentials the results obtained with four different averaging devices in the same 109 patients were compared. The high-resolution ECG was obtained from the body surface, high-gain amplified and filtered. With the averaging technique, the improved signal-to-noise ratio was able to detect low-amplitude cardiac activity. The incidence of late potentials detected with the four averaging systems, whose characteristics are described, ranged between 12% and 21%. Corresponding positive results were obtained in 5.5%, corresponding negative results in 68.8%. The reasons for differing results were mainly due to differences in visual or automatic interpretation of the registered fractionated electrical cardiac activity. Additionally, the determination of the end of QRS using the QRS width, obtained from reference leads, may influence the specificity of the methods.
Oeff et al. (Wed,) studied this question.