PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10338028

On selecting a body surface mapping procedure.

R Hoekema·G J Uijen·A van Oosterom
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Throughout the world, various procedures related to body surface mapping have evolved. The large differences in these procedures make multicenter studies difficult. This paper discusses the problems involved in selecting the number of leads, lead placement, and map format. Methods are highlighted that have been developed for pooling of the data as obtained by different centers. Recommendations are included to newcomers in the field. (The work stems from an international study, the Noninvasive Evaluation of the Myocardium, a study group sponsored by the European Commission, which has as one of its objectives the standardization of body surface mapping procedures.)

Explore related subjects

Body Surface Potential MappingData DisplayData Interpretation, StatisticalEuropeHumansJapanUnited StatesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Hoekema, G J Uijen, A van Oosterom. 1999. On selecting a body surface mapping procedure.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10338028/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Electromechanical mapping for detection of myocardial viability in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the ability of electromechanical mapping of the left ventricle to distinguish between nonviable and viable myocardium in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Unipolar voltage amplitudes and local endocardial shortening were measured in 31 patients (mean+/-SD age, 62+/-8 years) with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction, 30+/-9%). Dysfunctional regions, identified by 3D echocardiography, were characterized as nonviable when PET revealed matched reduction of perfusion and metabolism and as viable when perfusion was reduced or normal and metabolism was preserved. Mean unipolar voltage amplitudes and local shortening differed among normal, nonviable, and viable dysfunctional segments. Coefficient of variation for local shortening exceeded differences between groups and did not allow distinction between normal and dysfunctional myocardium. Optimum nominal discriminatory unipolar voltage amplitude between nonviable and viable dysfunctional myocardium was 6.5 mV, but we observed a great overlap between groups. Individual cutoff levels calculated as a percentage of electrical activity in normal segments were more accurate in the detection of viable dysfunctional myocardium than a general nominal cutoff level. The optimum normalized discriminatory value was 68%. Sensitivity and specificity were 78% for the normalized discriminatory value compared with 69% for the nominal value (P:<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Endocardial ECG amplitudes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy display a wide scatter, complicating the establishment of exact nominal values that allow distinction between viable and nonviable areas. Individual normalization of unipolar voltage amplitudes improves diagnostic accuracy. Electroanatomic mapping may enable identification of myocardial viability.

Body Surface Potential Mapping↗