Cargando…

Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram to distinguish cavotricuspid isthmus dependence from other atrial tachycardia mechanisms( )

AIMS: Accurately determining atrial arrhythmia mechanisms from a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) can be challenging. Given the high success rate of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, identification of CTI-dependent typical atrial flutter (AFL) is important for treatment decisions and procedure pl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sau, Arunashis, Ibrahim, Safi, Ahmed, Amar, Handa, Balvinder, Kramer, Daniel B, Waks, Jonathan W, Arnold, Ahran D, Howard, James P, Qureshi, Norman, Koa-Wing, Michael, Keene, Daniel, Malcolme-Lawes, Louisa, Lefroy, David C, Linton, Nicholas W F, Lim, Phang Boon, Varnava, Amanda, Whinnett, Zachary I, Kanagaratnam, Prapa, Mandic, Danilo, Peters, Nicholas S, Ng, Fu Siong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36712163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztac042
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Accurately determining atrial arrhythmia mechanisms from a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) can be challenging. Given the high success rate of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, identification of CTI-dependent typical atrial flutter (AFL) is important for treatment decisions and procedure planning. We sought to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) to classify CTI-dependent AFL vs. non-CTI dependent atrial tachycardia (AT), using data from the invasive electrophysiology (EP) study as the gold standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: We trained a CNN on data from 231 patients undergoing EP studies for atrial tachyarrhythmia. A total of 13 500 five-second 12-lead ECG segments were used for training. Each case was labelled CTI-dependent AFL or non-CTI-dependent AT based on the findings of the EP study. The model performance was evaluated against a test set of 57 patients. A survey of electrophysiologists in Europe was undertaken on the same 57 ECGs. The model had an accuracy of 86% (95% CI 0.77–0.95) compared to median expert electrophysiologist accuracy of 79% (range 70–84%). In the two thirds of test set cases (38/57) where both the model and electrophysiologist consensus were in agreement, the prediction accuracy was 100%. Saliency mapping demonstrated atrial activation was the most important segment of the ECG for determining model output. CONCLUSION: We describe the first CNN trained to differentiate CTI-dependent AFL from other AT using the ECG. Our model matched and complemented expert electrophysiologist performance. Automated artificial intelligence-enhanced ECG analysis could help guide treatment decisions and plan ablation procedures for patients with organized atrial arrhythmias.