Next Article in Journal
An Improved Time-Series Model Considering Rheological Parameters for Surface Deformation Monitoring of Soft Clay Subgrade
Previous Article in Journal
Hyperspectral Imaging in Environmental Monitoring: A Review of Recent Developments and Technological Advances in Compact Field Deployable Systems
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Comparison of Different Electrocardiography with Vectorcardiography Transformations

Department of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB–Technical University of Ostrava, 17. listopadu 15, 708 33 Ostrava, Czech Republic
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2019, 19(14), 3072;
Received: 11 June 2019 / Revised: 4 July 2019 / Accepted: 9 July 2019 / Published: 11 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Biosensors)
PDF [2135 KB, uploaded 16 July 2019]


This paper deals with transformations from electrocardiographic (ECG) to vectorcardiographic (VCG) leads. VCG provides better sensitivity, for example for the detection of myocardial infarction, ischemia, and hypertrophy. However, in clinical practice, measurement of VCG is not usually used because it requires additional electrodes placed on the patient’s body. Instead, mathematical transformations are used for deriving VCG from 12-leads ECG. In this work, Kors quasi-orthogonal transformation, inverse Dower transformation, Kors regression transformation, and linear regression-based transformations for deriving P wave (PLSV) and QRS complex (QLSV) are implemented and compared. These transformation methods were not yet compared before, so we have selected them for this paper. Transformation methods were compared for the data from the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) database and their accuracy was evaluated using a mean squared error (MSE) and a correlation coefficient (R) between the derived and directly measured Frank’s leads. Based on the statistical analysis, Kors regression transformation was significantly more accurate for the derivation of the X and Y leads than the others. For the Z lead, there were no statistically significant differences in the medians between Kors regression transformation and the PLSV and QLSV methods. This paper thoroughly compared multiple VCG transformation methods to conventional VCG Frank’s orthogonal lead system, used in clinical practice. View Full-Text
Keywords: electrocardiography; vectorcardiography; transformation; Frank’s leads; Kors transformation; dower transformation; quasi-orthogonal leads; least-squares fit method electrocardiography; vectorcardiography; transformation; Frank’s leads; Kors transformation; dower transformation; quasi-orthogonal leads; least-squares fit method

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Jaros, R.; Martinek, R.; Danys, L. Comparison of Different Electrocardiography with Vectorcardiography Transformations. Sensors 2019, 19, 3072.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sensors EISSN 1424-8220 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top