Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

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

Langley, P ; Rieta, J ; Stridh, Martin LU ; Millet, J ; Sommo, L and Murray, A (2006) In IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 53(2). p.343-346
Abstract
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 atria] 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... (More)
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 atria] 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 VI 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 VI. Reference atrial signal amplitude in VI 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 atria] signal in only a few cases resulting from notable residual ventricular activity for PCA and ICA algorithms. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
principal component analysis, spatiotemporal QRST cancellation, analysis, independent component, comparative, atrial fibrillation, atrial signal
in
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
volume
53
issue
2
pages
343 - 346
publisher
IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
external identifiers
  • pmid:16485765
  • wos:000234882300023
  • scopus:31644449796
ISSN
1558-2531
DOI
10.1109/TBME.2005.862567
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
99e4a3b8-cd5d-45a8-87da-6d0ef410c5db (old id 419464)
date added to LUP
2016-04-01 16:47:26
date last changed
2020-12-08 01:42:40
@article{99e4a3b8-cd5d-45a8-87da-6d0ef410c5db,
  abstract     = {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 atria] 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 VI 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 VI. Reference atrial signal amplitude in VI 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 atria] signal in only a few cases resulting from notable residual ventricular activity for PCA and ICA algorithms.},
  author       = {Langley, P and Rieta, J and Stridh, Martin and Millet, J and Sommo, L and Murray, A},
  issn         = {1558-2531},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {343--346},
  publisher    = {IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.},
  series       = {IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering},
  title        = {Comparison of atrial signal extraction algorithms in 12-lead ECGs with atrial fibrillation},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2005.862567},
  doi          = {10.1109/TBME.2005.862567},
  volume       = {53},
  year         = {2006},
}