ArticleOpen veterinary journal2026
A 12-lead or 10-lead electrocardiogram in cats? An analysis comparing 6-lead and 4-lead precordial systems.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electrocardiography is widely used in feline cardiology, but precordial lead placement remains poorly standardized for this species. Although six-lead precordial systems have been validated in dogs, their applicability to cats remains uncertain. This is due to the species' distinct thoracic conformation and the potential stress associated with electrode placement. A simplified precordial arrangement may improve patient comfort, but its diagnostic equivalence has not been fully investigated. Aim: To compare six (6P) and four (4P) precordial lead systems in feline electrocardiography and evaluate their clinical applicability, impact on wave measurements, and patient tolerance. Methods: Forty healthy, non-sedated adult cats were included. All animals underwent two electrocardiographic examinations in right lateral recumbency. The 6P system was applied as standardized in dogs. The 4P system consisted of one electrode positioned in the first right intercostal space and three electrodes spaced proportionally in the sixth left intercostal space. Amplitudes and durations of P, R, S, and T waves were recorded and compared within and between systems. Associations with demographic variables were assessed. Observational assessment of patient tolerance was conducted during both examinations. Results: Wave morphology varied slightly between systems. R-wave amplitude was consistently higher in the 6P system and showed a progressive decrease from V2 toward caudodorsal leads. The 4P system produced slightly longer P-wave durations. In contrast, R-, S-, and T-wave amplitudes tended to be higher in the 6P recordings. No significant associations were identified between electrocardiographic measurements and age, sex, or body weight. Cats demonstrated visibly greater tolerance to the 4P system, with fewer attempts to reposition or resist handling. Conclusion: Both the 6P and 4P precordial lead systems provide reliable electrocardiographic tracings in cats and can be used in clinical practice. However, the improved patient tolerance observed with the 4P arrangement suggests that it may be preferable in routine examinations. This approach maintains diagnostic usefulness while enhancing feline comfort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.