ECG signal processing methods significantly impacted reconstruction accuracy, with baseline drift removal increasing the magnitude of reconstructed electrograms up to four-fold compared to no processing (p<0.05).
ECG signal processing techniques, particularly baseline drift removal and high-frequency noise filtering, significantly impact the accuracy of reconstructed cardiac electrical activity in the inverse problem of electrocardiography.
p-value: p=<0.05
The inverse problem of electrocardiography is ill-posed. Errors in the model such as signal noise can impact the accuracy of reconstructed cardiac electrical activity. It is currently not known how sensitive the inverse problem is to signal processing techniques. To evaluate this, experimental data from a Langendorff-perfused pig heart (n=1) suspended in a human-shaped torso-tank was used. Different signal processing methods were applied to torso potentials recorded from 128 electrodes embedded in the tank surface. Processing methods were divided into three categories i) high-frequency noise removal ii) baseline drift removal and iii) signal averaging, culminating in n=72 different signal sets. For each signal set, the inverse problem was solved and reconstructed signals were compared to those directly recorded by the sock around the heart. ECG signal processing methods had a dramatic effect on reconstruction accuracy. In particular, removal of baseline drift significantly impacts the magnitude of reconstructed electrograms, while the presence of high-frequency noise impacts the activation time derived from these signals (p<0.05).
Bear et al. (Sun,) conducted a other in Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) accuracy (n=1). ECG signal processing (high-frequency noise removal, baseline drift removal, signal averaging) vs. Unprocessed torso signals was evaluated on Mean RMS voltage of reconstructed electrograms (p=<0.05). ECG signal processing methods significantly impacted reconstruction accuracy, with baseline drift removal increasing the magnitude of reconstructed electrograms up to four-fold compared to no processing (p<0.05).