Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2014 May 23;307(3):H437–H447. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00039.2014

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2014 the American Physiological Society

PMC Copyright notice

Fig. 3. — Absolute error (means ± SD) for each intracardiac lead at tidal volumes of 500 (in white) and 750 ml (in black), averaged across all animals, for unipolar leads (A), far-field bipolar leads (B), near-field bipolar leads (C), and for right ventricle and coronary sinus (RV-CS) intracatheter leads (D). No statistically significant difference was found between tidal volumes of 500 and 750 ml for any intracardiac lead, and no statistically significant difference was found between any 2 far-field bipolar, any 2 near-field bipolar, or any 2 RV-CS leads, respectively. A: unipolar absolute error ranges from 0.09 to 1.22 breaths/min, with mean of 0.26 breaths/min. B: far-field bipolar absolute error ranges from 0.13 to 1.13 breaths/min, with mean of 0.44 breaths/min. C: near-field bipolar absolute error ranges from 0.09 to 1.47 breaths/min, with mean of 0.66 breaths/min. D: RV-CS bipolar absolute error ranges from 0.11 to 0.87 breaths/min, with mean of 0.40 breaths/min. As shown by the small absolute errors in all intracardiac lead configurations, the algorithm closely tracks the true RR across a wide range of intracardiac leads when referenced to body surface ECG lead II. LV, left ventricle; EPI, epicardial space.