A novel signal-averaged electrocardiogram and an ambulatory-based signal-averaged electrocardiogram show strong correlations with conventional signal-averaged electrocardiogram in healthy subjects: A validation study

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundA novel signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) device and a novel ambulatory SAECG device are clinically available, but reference values have not been established. This study aimed to validate the novel SAECG and the novel ambulatory-based SAECG devices by comparison with the conventional SAECG device. Methods and resultsHigh-resolution SAECGs were recorded consecutively in 83 healthy volunteers using the 3 devices. A novel ambulatory SAECG device was used as real-time recording within 15 min for validation study (15 min ambulatory-based SAECG). We examined the concordance of positive results (at least 2/3 abnormal SAECG parameters) and negative results (0 or 1/3 abnormal parameters), as well as the correlations between SAECG parameters (filtered QRS duration [fQRS]); duration of low-amplitude signals < 40 μV in the terminal filtered QRS complex [LAS40]; root mean square voltage of the terminal 40 ms of the filtered QRS complex [RMS40]).Qualitative analysis showed excellent concordance among the novel SAECG, the 15 min ambulatory-based SAECG, and the conventional SAECG methods (novel SAECG vs. conventional SAECG = 94%; 15 min ambulatory-based SAECG vs. conventional SAECG = 91.6%; p = 0.755), while quantitative analysis indicated strong correlations between the novel SAECG and the conventional SAECG values for fQRS, LAS40, and LnRMS40 (r = 0.838–0.805, p < 0.0001, respectively). Strong correlations were also seen between 15 min ambulatory-based SAECG and conventional SAECG values for fQRS, LAS40, and RMS40 (r = 0.943–0.888, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, Bland-Altman quantitative analysis showed better agreement in fQRS and LnRMS40 measured by the 15 min ambulatory-based SAECG and the conventional SAECG than those by the novel SAECG and the conventional SAECG (fQRS, Lin's rho_c = 0.923 vs. 0757; RMS40, Lin's rho_c = 0.932 vs. 0.818, respectively). ConclusionIn healthy subjects, the parameters of either the novel SAECG or the 15 min ambulatory-based SAECG and those of the conventional SAECG were strongly correlated. Relatively good agreements were observed among 3 SAECGs, especially better between the 15 min ambulatory-based SAECG and the conventional SAECG probably due to similar measurement system of 2 methods.