IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Mar;66(3):749-758. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2018.2855661. Epub 2018 Jul 12.
This study aims to compare the informative value of a capacitively coupled electrocardiogram (cECG) to a conventional galvanic reference ECG (rECG) in patients after a major cardiac event under simulated driving conditions. Addressed research questions are the comparison and coherence of cECG and rECG by means of the signal quality, the artifact rate, the rate of assessable data for differential diagnosis, the visibility of characteristic ECG structures in cECG, the precision of ECG time intervals, and heart rate (in particular, despite possible waveform deformations due to the cardiac preconditions).
In a clinical trial, cECG and rECG data were recorded from ten patients after a major cardiac event. The cECG and rECG data were blindly evaluated by two cardiologists with regard to signal quality, artifacts, assessable data for differential diagnosis, visibility of ECG structures, and ECG time intervals. The results were statistically compared.
The cECG presented with more artifacts, an inferior signal quality, and less assessable data. However, when the data were assessable, determination of the ECG interval lengths was coherent to the one obtained from the rECG.
When the signal quality is sufficient, the cECG yields the same informative value as the rECG.
For certain scenarios, cECG might replace rECG systems. Hence, it is an important research question whether a similar amount of information can be obtained using a cECG system.
本研究旨在比较心脏重大事件后患者在模拟驾驶条件下电容耦合心电图（cECG）与传统的电流参考心电图（rECG）的信息量。研究问题是通过信号质量、伪影率、用于鉴别诊断的可评估数据率、cECG 中特征 ECG 结构的可见性、ECG 时间间隔的精度和心率（特别是由于心脏预处理可能导致的波形变形）来比较和整合 cECG 和 rECG。
在一项临床试验中，从 10 名心脏重大事件后患者中记录了 cECG 和 rECG 数据。由两名心脏病专家对 cECG 和 rECG 数据进行了信号质量、伪影、用于鉴别诊断的可评估数据、ECG 结构的可见性和 ECG 时间间隔的盲法评估。对结果进行了统计学比较。
cECG 伪影更多，信号质量更差，可评估数据更少。然而，当数据可评估时，ECG 间隔长度的确定与 rECG 获得的结果一致。
当信号质量足够时，cECG 与 rECG 具有相同的信息量。
在某些情况下，cECG 可能会替代 rECG 系统。因此，使用 cECG 系统是否可以获得类似数量的信息是一个重要的研究问题。
