Standardization of electrode placement for continuous patient monitoring: introduction of an assessment tool to compare proposed electrocardiogram lead configurations.

Numerous modified electrocardiogram (ECG) lead configurations are used for continuous patient monitoring, and they often produce waveforms substantially different from the standard 12-lead ECG. Serial comparisons between modified and standard lead configurations can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapy. To address this problem, an international Lead Summit was convened in June 2010 to discuss standardizing lead configurations for patient monitoring. The present article summarizes an invited presentation at the Lead Summit where the author proposed an assessment tool to compare the clinical utility of various lead configurations to provide a framework for ongoing and future discussions. The tool (0-20 points, with 20 being the perfect score) weighs 5 factors that are clinically important including equivalency to the standard ECG (6 points), patient comfort (4 points), noise immunity (4 points), noninterference with clinical interventions (3 points), and identifiable anatomical landmarks for accurate electrode placement (3 points). Because research is lacking for some of these factors (eg, patient comfort and noise immunity), studies conducted in patients in actual clinical environments are needed to reach consensus about ideal lead configurations for patient monitoring.

[1]  R. Califf,et al.  Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring in Hospital Settings: An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young , 2004, Circulation.

[2]  B. Drew Pseudo myocardial injury patterns because of nonstandard electrocardiogram electrode placement. , 2008, Journal of electrocardiology.

[3]  Michele M Pelter,et al.  Comparison of a new reduced lead set ECG with the standard ECG for diagnosing cardiac arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia. , 2002, Journal of electrocardiology.

[4]  R. E. Mason,et al.  A new system of multiple-lead exercise electrocardiography. , 1966, American heart journal.

[5]  O. Pahlm,et al.  Differences in QRS axis measurements, classification of inferior myocardial infarction, and noise tolerance for 12-lead electrocardiograms acquired from monitoring electrode positions compared to standard locations. , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[6]  Stefan P Nelwan,et al.  Reconstruction of the 12-lead electrocardiogram from reduced lead sets. , 2004, Journal of electrocardiology.

[7]  Laura Wallis,et al.  Alarm Fatigue Linked to Patient's Death , 2010 .

[8]  O. Pahlm,et al.  Potential solutions for providing standard electrocardiogram recordings from nonstandard recording sites. , 2008, Journal of electrocardiology.

[9]  G E Dower,et al.  Deriving the 12-lead electrocardiogram from four (EASI) electrodes. , 1988, Journal of electrocardiology.

[10]  G F Michaud,et al.  Clinical consequences of electrocardiographic artifact mimicking ventricular tachycardia. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Barbara J Drew,et al.  Pitfalls and artifacts in electrocardiography. , 2006, Cardiology clinics.

[12]  O. Pahlm,et al.  Evaluation of changes in standard electrocardiographic QRS waveforms recorded from activity-compatible proximal limb lead positions. , 1992, The American journal of cardiology.

[13]  M. Toosi,et al.  False ST elevation in a modified 12-lead surface electrocardiogram. , 2008, Journal of electrocardiology.

[14]  O. Pahlm,et al.  An accurate exercise lead system for bicycle ergometer tests. , 1989, European heart journal.

[15]  Li Cui-lan Prevention of Torsade de Pointes in Hospital Settings , 2011 .

[16]  D. Gutterman,et al.  Effects of limb electrode placement on the 12- and 16-lead electrocardiogram. , 2008, Journal of electrocardiology.

[17]  Ernestfrank An Accurate, Clinically Practical System For Spatial Vectorcardiography , 1956 .