A novel sequential selection algorithm effectively identifies optimal recording sites for limited lead body surface potential mapping, concentrating leads in the precordial region.
May optimize limited-lead mapping efficiency in research; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: In this study we propose the development of a new algorithm for selecting optimal recording sites for limited lead body surface potential mapping. The proposed algorithm differs from previously reported methods in that it is based upon a simple and intuitive data driven technique that does not make any presumptions about deterministic characteristics of the data. It uses a forward selection based search technique to find the best combination of electrocardiographic leads. METHODS: The study was conducted using a dataset consisting of body surface potential maps (BSPM) recorded from 116 subjects which included 59 normals and 57 subjects exhibiting evidence of old Myocardial Infarction (MI). The performance of the algorithm was evaluated using spatial RMS voltage error and correlation coefficient to compare original and reconstructed map frames. RESULTS: In all, three configurations of the algorithm were evaluated and it was concluded that there was little difference in the performance of the various configurations. In addition to observing the performance of the selection algorithm, several lead subsets of 32 electrodes as chosen by the various configurations of the algorithm were evaluated. The rationale for choosing this number of recording sites was to allow comparison with a previous study that used a different algorithm, where 32 leads were deemed to provide an acceptable level of reconstruction performance. CONCLUSION: It was observed that although the lead configurations suggested in this study were not identical to that suggested in the previous work, the systems did bear similar characteristics in that recording sites were chosen with greatest density in the precordial region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Finlay et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: