Cargando…

A comprehensive artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram interpretation program

BACKGROUND: Automated computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation algorithms are designed to enhance physician ECG interpretation, minimize medical error, and expedite clinical workflow. However, the performance of current computer algorithms is notoriously inconsistent. We aimed to develop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kashou, Anthony H., Ko, Wei-Yin, Attia, Zachi I., Cohen, Michal S., Friedman, Paul A., Noseworthy, Peter A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8890098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35265877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvdhj.2020.08.005
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Automated computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation algorithms are designed to enhance physician ECG interpretation, minimize medical error, and expedite clinical workflow. However, the performance of current computer algorithms is notoriously inconsistent. We aimed to develop and validate an artificial intelligence–enabled ECG (AI-ECG) algorithm capable of comprehensive 12-lead ECG interpretation with accuracy comparable to practicing cardiologists. METHODS: We developed an AI-ECG algorithm using a convolutional neural network as a multilabel classifier capable of assessing 66 discrete, structured diagnostic ECG codes using the cardiologist’s final annotation as the gold-standard interpretation. We included 2,499,522 ECGs from 720,978 patients ≥18 years of age with a standard 12-lead ECG obtained at the Mayo Clinic ECG laboratory between 1993 and 2017. The total sample was randomly divided into training (n = 1,749,654), validation (n = 249,951), and testing (n = 499,917) datasets with a similar distribution of codes. We compared the AI-ECG algorithm’s performance to the cardiologist’s interpretation in the testing dataset using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and precision recall (PR) curves. RESULTS: The model performed well for various rhythm, conduction, ischemia, waveform morphology, and secondary diagnoses codes with an area under the ROC curve of ≥0.98 for 62 of the 66 codes. PR metrics were used to assess model performance accounting for category imbalance and demonstrated a sensitivity ≥95% for all codes. CONCLUSIONS: An AI-ECG algorithm demonstrates high diagnostic performance in comparison to reference cardiologist interpretation of a standard 12-lead ECG. The use of AI-ECG reading tools may permit scalability as ECG acquisition becomes more ubiquitous.