These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validation testing of the spacelabs PC2 ST-segment analyzer.
    Author: London MJ, Ahlstrom LD.
    Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth; 1995 Dec; 9(6):684-93. PubMed ID: 8664460.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have demonstrated that perioperative myocardial ischemia, detected by electrocardiography, is a risk factor for myocardial infarction. ST-segment analyzers and hemodynamic monitors may be useful for on-line detection in perioperative and critical care environments. However, independent performance and accuracy standards for these devices have not been established. Therefore, a testing protocol was developed using an electrocardiogram (ECG) simulator that allowed selectively altered ST-segment displacement, in a calibrated fashion over a wide range. DESIGN: Laboratory bench study. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Custom digital ECG waveform templates were programmed for use with a commercially available ECG simulator (M311 ECG simulator; Fogg Systems, Inc., Aurora, CO). For each template, ST-segment morphology (horizontal elevation or depression, downsloping depression), QRS duration, and the presence or absence of a P wave were manipulated, resulting in seven different QRS shapes. Within each shape, the degree of ST-segment deviation was altered over a wide range. A PC2 Bedside Monitor (SpaceLabs Inc., Redmond, WA) was tested. One hundred forty-eight measurements of ST-segment deviation input from the simulator were made at each of two testing sessions. The first ST-segment value displayed by the analyzer was recorded, and the two measurements averaged for comparison. Placement of the J-point, J + 60 msec, and isoelectric reference points by the analyzer were evaluated. Simulator output was validated for accuracy and stability. Subtle errors in placement of the J-point marker were observed in all seven QRS shapes. These errors usually did not alter placement of the isoelectric marker before, but not exactly at the beginning of, the R-wave upstroke. Thus, ST-segment values returned by the monitor (J + 60 msec - isoelectric reference value) were unaffected. However, in two QRS shapes, the isoelectric point was displaced onto the upstroke of the R wave, resulting in erroneous ST-segment values. In one, the error may have been caused by the difference in QRS duration of that template (120 msec) relative to the fixed 115-msec interval from the J point used by the analyzer and was present in all points tested. In the second (normal QRS duration), the error was present in some, but not all points tested (4/21, 24%). All QRS shapes with proper placement of the isoelectric point returned ST-segment values within +/- 0.5 mm of expected, and 98% were within +/- 0.25 mm of expected. The mean difference between observed and expected ST-segment values for 100 measurements with normal QRS duration and proper isoelectric point placement was 0.08 mm +/- 0.07 mm (SD). CONCLUSIONS: The bench results suggest that visual confirmation of ST-segment analyzer values may be advisable in the clinical setting. Although most complexes with normal conduction and a P wave are likely to be accurately analyzed, those with prolonged QRS duration were problematic. The simulator protocol may be helpful in ensuring accuracy of ST-segment analyzers, especially in their early development stages.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]