A comparison between Frank and SVEC III lead systems in normal subjects

Naip Tuna, Stanley Finkelstein, William Biessener, George Jelatis, Michael Tiller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


The Frank and the SVEC III lead systems were used to record the vectorcardiograms (VCGs) of 10 normal subjects. The VCGs obtained using the two leads were compared. The QRS and the T magnitudes of the Frank lead were 25-30% and 13%, respectively, larger than those of the SVEC III. The maximum QRS vectors of the Frank lead were less inferiorly and less posteriorly oriented. Maximal T vectors of the Frank lead were less inferiorly and less anteriorly oriented. When the VCGs of 318 adult male Minnesotans (Minnesota group) recorded by the SVEC III lead system were compared with the VCGs of 510 adults from Washington, D.C. (Draper group) recorded by the Frank system, the magnitudes of QRS and T of the Draper group were larger. The percent increase of voltage was comparable to that seen when the two leads were compared in the same population. There were angular differences between the Draper and the Minnesota groups which could not be explained by lead differences. The differences were attributed to the differences in populations. It was also noted that there are significant differences in the normal values published by various authors and that the normal values obtained from one population should be applied with caution to other populations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)219-225
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Electrocardiology
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1980

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The most commonly used electrocardiographic and vectorcardiographic corrected orthogonal lead systems in the United States are those described by Frank, Schmitt (SVEC III), McFee and Parungao, and Helm. 1~ Because of the smaller number of electrodes employed, clinically the Frank lead system is probably the most widely used corrected orthogonal lead system. In addition to tests and comparisons in human torso models, these leads have been compared with each other in a relatively small number of normal subjects and patients with heart disease. 5-7 Burger has investigated the mathematical requirements for the transformation of one vectorcardiographic system into another system and found that the SVEC III, the McFee and Farungao and the Frank lead systems markedly resemble one another, s These leads have not been compared in a large number of normal subjects or patients with various heart diseases using similar methods of recording and analyzing of electrocardiographic and vector- From the Section of Cardiology,D epartment of Medicine, and the Division of Health Computer Sciences, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Investigation partly supported by the National Heart and Lung Institute Grants HL-08527-09 and HL-15265. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. w 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Reprint requests to: Naip Tuna, M.D., Box 481 Mayo, University Hospitals, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison between Frank and SVEC III lead systems in normal subjects'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this