Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2023
Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram to distinguish atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia from atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sau Arunashis, Ibrahim Safi, Kramer Daniel B, Waks Jonathan W, 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
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accurately determining arrhythmia mechanism from a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) of supraventricular tachycardia can be challenging. We hypothesized a convolutional neural network (CNN) can be trained to classify atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT) vs atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from the 12-lead ECG, when using findings from the invasive electrophysiology (EP) study as the gold standard.
METHODS: We trained a CNN on data from 124 patients undergoing EP studies with a final diagnosis of AVRT or AVNRT. A total of 4962 5-second 12-lead ECG segments were used for training. Each case was labeled AVRT or AVNRT based on the findings of the EP study. The model performance was evaluated against a hold-out test set of 31 patients and compared to an existing manual algorithm.
RESULTS: The model had an accuracy of 77.4% in distinguishing between AVRT and AVNRT. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80. In comparison, the existing manual algorithm achieved an accuracy of 67.7% on the same test set. Saliency mapping demonstrated the network used the expected sections of the ECGs for diagnoses; these were the QRS complexes that may contain retrograde P waves.
CONCLUSION: We describe the first neural network trained to differentiate AVRT from AVNRT. Accurate diagnosis of arrhythmia mechanism from a 12-lead ECG could aid preprocedural counseling, consent, and procedure planning. The current accuracy from our neural network is modest but may be improved with a larger training dataset.
METHODS: We trained a CNN on data from 124 patients undergoing EP studies with a final diagnosis of AVRT or AVNRT. A total of 4962 5-second 12-lead ECG segments were used for training. Each case was labeled AVRT or AVNRT based on the findings of the EP study. The model performance was evaluated against a hold-out test set of 31 patients and compared to an existing manual algorithm.
RESULTS: The model had an accuracy of 77.4% in distinguishing between AVRT and AVNRT. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80. In comparison, the existing manual algorithm achieved an accuracy of 67.7% on the same test set. Saliency mapping demonstrated the network used the expected sections of the ECGs for diagnoses; these were the QRS complexes that may contain retrograde P waves.
CONCLUSION: We describe the first neural network trained to differentiate AVRT from AVNRT. Accurate diagnosis of arrhythmia mechanism from a 12-lead ECG could aid preprocedural counseling, consent, and procedure planning. The current accuracy from our neural network is modest but may be improved with a larger training dataset.