Cargando…
Evaluation of an Ambulatory ECG Analysis Platform Using Deep Neural Networks in Routine Clinical Practice
BACKGROUND: Holter analysis requires significant clinical resources to achieve a high‐quality diagnosis. This study sought to assess whether an artificial intelligence (AI)‐based Holter analysis platform using deep neural networks is noninferior to a conventional one used in clinical routine in dete...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683671/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36073638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026196 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Holter analysis requires significant clinical resources to achieve a high‐quality diagnosis. This study sought to assess whether an artificial intelligence (AI)‐based Holter analysis platform using deep neural networks is noninferior to a conventional one used in clinical routine in detecting a major rhythm abnormality. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1000 Holter (24‐hour) recordings were collected from 3 tertiary hospitals. Recordings were independently analyzed by cardiologists for the AI‐based platform and by electrophysiologists as part of clinical practice for the conventional platform. For each Holter, diagnostic performance was evaluated and compared through the analysis of the presence or absence of 5 predefined cardiac abnormalities: pauses, ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation/flutter/tachycardia, high‐grade atrioventricular block, and high burden of premature ventricular complex (>10%). Analysis duration was monitored. The deep neural network–based platform was noninferior to the conventional one in its ability to detect a major rhythm abnormality. There were no statistically significant differences between AI‐based and classical platforms regarding the sensitivity and specificity to detect the predefined abnormalities except for atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia (atrial fibrillation, 0.98 versus 0.91 and 0.98 versus 1.00; pause, 0.95 versus 1.00 and 1.00 versus 1. 00; premature ventricular contractions, 0.96 versus 0.87 and 1.00 versus 1.00; ventricular tachycardia, 0.97 versus 0.68 and 0.99 versus 1.00; atrioventricular block, 0.93 versus 0.57 and 0.99 versus 1.00). The AI‐based analysis was >25% faster than the conventional one (4.4 versus 6.0 minutes; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that an AI‐based strategy for the analysis of Holter recordings is faster and at least as accurate as a conventional analysis by electrophysiologists. |
---|