Guideline:
Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Kligfield P Gettes LS Bailey JJ Childers R Deal BJ Hancock EW van Herpen G Kors JA Macfarlane P Mirvis DM Pahlm O Rautaharju P Wagner GS American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee American College of Cardiology Foundation Heart Rhythm Society Josephson M Mason JW Okin P Surawicz B Wellens H. Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part I: The electrocardiogram and its technology. Circulation 2007 Mar 13;115(10):1306-24. [164 references] PubMed
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Category
Diagnosis
Evaluation
Management
Prevention
Screening
Treatment
Intended Users
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
- To examine the relation of the resting electrocardiogram (ECG) to its technology
- To foster understanding of how the modern ECG is derived and displayed
- To establish standards that will improve the accuracy and usefulness of the ECG in practice
Target Population
Patients presenting with or at risk of but not limited to:
- Acute coronary syndromes
- Intraventricular conduction disturbances and arrhythmias
- Electrolyte abnormalities particularly of serum potassium and calcium
- Genetically mediated electrical or structural cardiac abnormalities
- Conditions treated with antiarrhythmic and other drugs
Interventions and Practices Considered
Electrocardiogram (ECG)
Major Outcomes Considered
Accuracy of electrocardiogram (ECG)
Methods Used to Collect/Select Evidence
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Not stated
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Expert Consensus
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Not applicable
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Not stated
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
The chairman (L.S.G.) was selected by the Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association (AHA). He formed an advisory group to assist in setting goals and to recommend other writing group members. The committee met on 5 occasions to discuss goals identify specific areas that required updating and review progress. A smaller working/writing group with a group leader was chosen for each topic.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Not applicable
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
This statement was approved by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee on October 26 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Board of Trustees on October 12 2006 and by the Heart Rhythm Society on September 6 2006.
Major Recommendations
The Electrocardiogram (ECG) Signal and Its Processing
Sampling the ECG Signal
Oversampling by a significant multiple of the upper-frequency cutoff is recommended to provide recommended bandwidth in the digitized signal. Manufacturers should continue to develop improved algorithms for the identification and quantitative presentation of pacemaker stimulus outputs and for their preservation during ECG storage and retrieval. Low-amplitude pacemaker stimulus outputs should not be artificially increased in amplitude to aid recognition because this would distort the form of the recorded ECG. Instead it is recommended that manufacturers incorporate a separate representation of detected pacemaker stimulus outputs into 1 row only of the standard output tracing that would aid the identification of atrial ventricular and biventricular pacing signals. The selected row might be a rhythm strip that accompanies the standard 3 rows of lead signals in 4 columns or in the absence of a rhythm row 1 of the standard rows might be selected for this purpose.
Low-Frequency Filtering
To reduce artifactual distortion of the ST segment the 1990 American Heart Association (AHA) document recommended that the low-frequency cutoff be 0.05 hertz (Hz) for routine filters but that this requirement could be relaxed to 0.67 Hz or below for linear digital filters with zero phase distortion. The American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (ANSI/AAMI) recommendations of 1991 affirmed in 2001 endorsed these relaxed limits for low-frequency cutoff for standard 12-lead ECGs subject to maximum allowable errors for individual determinants of overall input signal reproduction. These standards continue to be recommended.
High-Frequency Filtering
The ANSI/AAMI standard of 1991 reaffirmed in 2001 recommended a high-frequency cutoff of at least 150 Hz for all standard 12-lead ECGs. The ANSI/AAMI document also details maximum allowable errors for individual determinants of overall input signal reproduction which extend beyond the scope of the present report but are important guidelines for manufacturers. These most recent limits continue to be recommended for adolescents and for adults with extension of the high-frequency cutoff to 250 Hz in children subject to demonstration of fidelity testing by individual manufacturers according to standard methods. Electrocardiographs should automatically alert the user when a suboptimal high-frequency cutoff such as 40 Hz is used and a proper high-frequency cutoff should automatically be restored between routine standard ECG recordings.
Formation of a Representative Single-Lead Complex
Digital electrocardiographs must provide beat alignment that allows selective averaging or formation of a representative complex with fidelity adequate for diagnostic ECG computer programs. Fidelity standards for construction of representative complexes need to be developed.
Global Measurement From Simultaneously Acquired Leads
Global measurements of intervals should be obtained from time-coherent data in multiple leads to detect the earliest onset and latest offset of waveforms. For routine purposes global measurements of P-wave duration PR interval QRS duration and QT duration should be stated on the ECG report. A comparative study is needed of global measurements made by different methods from a reference standard. Differences in global measurement algorithms and methods should be minimized to promote standardization but these differences must be accounted for in comparative studies within individuals and between individuals. Attention must be paid to definition of normal ECG ranges in children and adolescents as well as in adults with stratification for specific age groups sex and race. Where methods vary algorithm-specific normal ranges for intervals need to be derived. With respect to QT interval the end of the T wave as determined globally should match with a well-defined T-wave offset in at least 1 of its component individual leads. Alternative methods of QT measurement from single or multiple leads may be prescribed for special purposes such as drug evaluation but it is inappropriate for studies involving serial comparison of the QT interval to use differing methods of QT measurement within trials.
Data Compression for Transmission Storage and Retrieval of ECGs
Compression algorithms should perform in a manner that allows retrieved data to adhere to the fidelity standards established in the 1990 AHA statement with reference to the original signal.
Standard Leads
Location of Standard Limb and Precordial Electrodes
Technicians and other medical personnel responsible for the recording of ECGs should have periodic retraining in skin preparation proper electrode positioning and proper patient positioning. All leads are effectively "bipolar" and the differentiation between "bipolar" and "unipolar" in the description of the standard limb leads the augmented limb leads and the precordial leads is discouraged. Neither term should be used. Studies to clarify the effect of distal versus proximal limb lead electrode placement on ECG magnitudes and durations are required. Validity of test performance criteria for current diagnostic algorithms may be dependent on placement of limb leads in the same positions that were used for criteria development. Pending resolution of this issue all ongoing studies used for criteria development must clearly document electrode placement with precision. The horizontal plane through V4 is preferable to the fifth intercostals interspace for the placement of V5 and V6 and should be used for placement of these electrodes. Definition of V5 as midway between V4 and V6 is conducive to greater reproducibility than occurs for the anterior axillary line and this should be used when the anterior axillary line is not well defined. In the placement of V6 attention should be directed to the definition of the midaxillary line as extending along the middle or central plane of the thorax. For the time being it is recommended that electrodes continue to be placed under the breast in women until additional studies using electrodes placed on top of the breast are available.
Derivation of the Standard Limb Leads and Relationships Among Leads
Users should recognize the redundancy of information in the standard limb leads. Redundancy notwithstanding the information contained in different perspectives from multiple leads can be used to improve recognition of ECG abnormalities.
Derivation of the Augmented Limb Leads and the Precordial Leads
The augmented limb leads of the frontal plane and the precordial leads result from derived electrode pairs and should not be described as "unipolar." Users should recognize the derived and redundant nature of the 3 augmented limb leads but these are retained because multiple leads facilitate the clinical interpretation of the ECG.
Simultaneous Lead Presentation
Standard tracings obtained with digital electrocardiographs should provide accurate temporal alignment of multiple leads with maximum misalignment of no more than 10 ms and ideally as little as is practically feasible. The printed tracing may present temporally aligned groups of leads in different formats according to preference.
Alternative Information Format From Standard Leads
Routine use of the Cabrera sequence for display of the limb leads can be highly recommended as an alternative presentation standard. For display in a format of 4 columns of 3 leads a left-to-right sequence (aVL to III) is logical because it is closer to traditional placement of limb lead I at the upper left. To maintain consistency the left-to-right sequence is also recommended for horizontal display of the limb leads. However it is recognized that the current limb lead array is so deeply entrenched in ECG tradition that change might take years to become generally accepted. At present manufacturers should be encouraged to make this display available as a routine option in new electrocardiographs.
Alternative Lead Application
Torso and Other Modified Placement of the Limb Leads
ECGs recorded with torso placement of the extremity electrodes cannot be considered equivalent to standard ECGs for all purposes and should not be used interchangeably with standard ECGs for serial comparison. Evaluation of the effect of torso placement of limb leads on waveform amplitudes and durations in infants is required. Tracings that use torso limb lead placement must be clearly labeled as such including 12-lead tracings derived from torso limb lead placement in neonates or in young children and during ambulatory and exercise electrocardiography in adults. Furthermore tracings recorded in the sitting or upright position should not be considered equivalent to standard supine ECGs.
Reduced Lead Sets
Synthesized 12-lead ECGs are not equivalent to standard 12-lead ECGs and cannot be recommended as a substitute for routine use. All 12-lead tracings derived by synthesis from reduced lead sets must be clearly labeled as such. Although synthesized ECGs that use the EASI lead system may be demonstrably adequate for some purposes such as monitoring of rhythm they cannot be considered equivalent to standard 12-lead recordings or recommended at present as an alternative for routine use.
Expanded Lead Sets
Because treatment of infarction may vary with right ventricular involvement recording of additional right-sided precordial leads during acute inferior-wall left ventricular infarction is recommended. Routine recording of these leads in the absence of acute inferior infarction is not recommended. The use of additional posterior precordial leads can be recommended in settings in which treatment will depend on documentation of ST elevation during infarction or other acute coronary syndrome. Routine recording of these additional leads in the absence of an acute coronary syndrome is not recommended. As ST-segment vectors become increasingly used for improved diagnostic classification of myocardial infarction the addition of a frontal plane ST-segment axis to the currently measured P-wave QRS and T-wave axes in the ECG header data is recommended.
Lead Switches and Misplacements
Limb Lead and Precordial Lead Switches
Medical personnel responsible for the recording of routine ECGs should receive training on the avoidance of lead switches and guidelines for their recognition. Lead-switch detection algorithms should be incorporated into digital electrocardiographs along with alarms for abnormally high lead impedance and suspected misplacements should be identified to the person recording the ECG in time to correct the problem. If not corrected before recording a diagnostic statement alerting the reader to the presence of different types of lead switches should be incorporated into preliminary interpretive reports.
Lead Misplacement
Periodic retraining in proper lead positioning of the precordial leads should be routine for all personnel who are responsible for the recording of ECGs. Serial tracings in acute or subacute care settings should make use of some form of skin marking to promote reproducibility of lead placement when it is not possible to leave properly applied electrodes in place.
Computerized Interpretation of the ECG
Computer-based interpretation of the ECG is an adjunct to the electrocardiographer and all computer-based reports require physician overreading. Accurate individual templates should be formed in each lead before final feature extraction and measurement used for diagnostic interpretation. Time-coherent data from multiple leads should be used to detect the earliest onset and latest offset of waveforms of global measurements used for diagnostic interpretation. Deterministic and statistical or probabilistic algorithms should be based on well-constructed databases that include varying degrees of pathology and an appropriate distribution of confounding conditions. Such algorithms should be validated with data that have not been used for development. Programs using complex diagnostic algorithms should document in reference material those measurements that are critical to the diagnostic statement which might include synthesized vector loop or other novel measurements. Serial comparisons of sequential ECGs should be done by trained observers regardless of whether the ECG program provides a serial comparison. Assessment of the performance of different algorithms will be facilitated by use of a standardized glossary of interpretive statements.
Clinical Algorithm(s)
None provided
Type of Evidence supporting the Recommendations
The type of evidence supporting the recommendations is not specifically stated for each recommendation.
Potential Benefits
Appropriate use of the electrocardiogram (ECG) in order to improve ECG recording and interpretation
Potential Harms
- A consequence of high-frequency recommendations is that reduction of noise by setting the high-frequency cutoff of a standard or monitoring electrocardiogram (ECG) to 40 hertz (Hz) will invalidate any amplitude measurements used for diagnostic classification.
- Tracings with Mason-Likar and other alternative lead placement may affect QRS morphology more than repolarization compared with the standard ECG; these differences can include false-negative and false-positive infarction criteria.
- Limb lead switches can result in false-positive and false-negative signs of ischemia.
Description of Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy was not provided.
IOM Care Need
Getting Better
Living with Illness
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Kligfield P Gettes LS Bailey JJ Childers R Deal BJ Hancock EW van Herpen G Kors JA Macfarlane P Mirvis DM Pahlm O Rautaharju P Wagner GS American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee American College of Cardiology Foundation Heart Rhythm Society Josephson M Mason JW Okin P Surawicz B Wellens H. Recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part I: The electrocardiogram and its technology. Circulation 2007 Mar 13;115(10):1306-24. [164 references] PubMed
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Source(s) of Funding
American Heart Association
Guideline Committee
Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram Writing Group
Composition of Group that Authored the Guideline
Primary Authors: Paul Kligfield MD FAHA FACC; Leonard S. Gettes MD FAHA FACC; James J. Bailey MD; Rory Childers MD; Barbara J. Deal MD FACC; E. William Hancock MD FACC; Gerard van Herpen MD PhD; Jan A. Kors PhD; Peter Macfarlane DSc; David M. Mirvis MD FAHA; Olle Pahlm MD PhD; Pentti Rautaharju MD PhD; Galen S. Wagner MD
Writing Group Members: Mark Josephson MD FACC FHRS; Jay W. Mason MD FAHA FACC FHRS; Peter Okin MD FACC; Borys Surawicz MD FAHA FACC; and Hein Wellens MD FAHA FACC
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
The American Heart Association the American College of Cardiology and the Heart Rhythm Society make every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal professional or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.
Writing Group Disclosures
| Writing Group Member | Employment | Research Grant | Other Research Support | Speakers' Bureau/Honoraria | Ownership Interest | Consultant/Advisory Board | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paul Kligfield | Weill Medical College of Cornell University | None | None | None | Unilead (ECG electrode technology)– limited partner† | Philips Medical* Mortara Instrument* GE Healthcare* Quinton Medical* MDS Pharma Services† Cardiac Science* | None |
| James J. Bailey | National Institutes of Health | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Rory Childers | University of Chicago | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Barbara J. Deal | Northwestern University | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Leonard S. Gettes | University of North Carolina | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| E. William Hancock | Stanford University Medical Center— retired Professor Emeritus | None | None | None | None | Philips Medical Systems† Covance Diagnostics† | None |
| Jan A. Kors | Erasmus Medical Center | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Peter Macfarlane | University of Glasgow | Cardiac Science† Medtronic† Heartlab† Medcon† Del Mar Reynolds† Drayer† | None | None | None | Garhard Schmidt Consult* Epiphany Cardiography* IqTeq* Cardiolex* | None |
| David M. Mirvis | University of Tennessee | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Olle Pahlm | Lund University Sweden | Philips Medical Systems* | None | None | None | None | None |
| Pentti Rautaharju | Wake Forest University Medical School–retired | None | None | None | None | Philips Medical Systems† | None |
| Gerard van Herpen | Erasmus Medical Center | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Galen S. Wagner | Duke University Medical Center | Medtronic† Physiocontrol† Welch Allyn† | None | None | None | None | None |
This table represents the relationships of writing group members that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure Questionnaire which all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit. A relationship is considered to be "significant" if (1) the person receives $10 000 or more during any 12-month period or 5% or more of the person's gross income; or (2) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of the entity or owns $10 000 or more of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be "modest" if it is less than "significant" under the preceding definition.
*Modest
†Significant
Reviewer Disclosures
| Reviewer | Employment | Research Grant | Other Research Support | Speakers' Bureau/Honoraria | Ownership Interest | Consultant/Advisory Board | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Abrams | University of New Mexico | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Leonard S. Dreifus | Hahnemann University School of Medicine | None | None | None | None | None | Merck Endpoint Committee |
| Mark Eisenberg | McGill University | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Nora Goldschlager | University of California San Francisco | None | None | St. Jude Medtronic | None | None | None |
| Peter Kowey | Lankenau Hospital and Main Line Health | None | None | Medifacts | Cardionet | Medifacts | None |
| Frank Marcus | University of Arizona | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Thomas M. Munger | Mayo Clinic | St. Jude Medical Bard Electrophysiology | None | None | None | None | None |
| Robert J. Myerburg | University of Miami | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| David Rosenbaum | Case Western Reserve University | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Richard Schofield | University of Florida | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Samuel Shubrooks | Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center | None | None | None | None | None | None |
| Cynthia Tracy | George Washington University | None | None | None | None | None | None |
This table represents the relationships of reviewers that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure Questionnaire which all reviewers are required to complete and submit.
Endorser(s)
International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology - Professional Association
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Availability
Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Web site the Heart Rhythm Society Web site and from the American Heart Association (AHA) Web site.
Print copies: Available from the American Heart Association Public Information 7272 Greenville Ave Dallas TX 75231-4596; Phone: 800-242-8721
Availability of Companion Documents
None available
Patient Resources
None available
NGC STATUS
This summary was completed by ECRI Institute on July 27 2007. The information was verified by the guideline developer on August 24 2007.
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
Copyright to the original guideline is owned by the American Heart Association Inc. (AHA). Reproduction of the AHA Guideline without permission is prohibited. Single reprint is available by calling 800-242-8721 (US only) or writing the American Heart Association Public Information 7272 Greenville Ave. Dallas TX 75231-4596. Ask for reprint No. 71-0276. To purchase additional reprints: up to 999 copies call 800-611-6083 (US only) or fax 413-665-2671; 1000 or more copies call 410-528-4121 fax 410-528-4264 or email kgray@lww.com. To make photocopies for personal or educational use call the Copyright Clearance Center 978-750-8400.
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop produce approve or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies relevant professional associations public or private organizations other government agencies health care organizations or plans and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion.aspx .
NGC AHRQ and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC AHRQ or its contractor ECRI Institute and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.
Tools
No Quick Reference tools have been developed.
Details
FDA Warning
- Category:
- Conditions:
- Any disease/condition requiring the use of an electrocardiogram (ECG) including but not limited to:Acute coronary syndromesIntraventricular conduction disturbances and arrhythmiasElectrolyte abnormalities particularly of serum potassium and calciumGenetically mediated electrical or structural cardiac abnormalitiesConditions treated with antiarrhythmic and other drugs
- Published:
- 2007 Mar 13
- Endorsed by:
- American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association