Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021
Comparing sensitivity and specificity of pacemaker ID application and cardiac rhythm management device-finder application in identifying cardiac implantable electronic device manufacturer using chest radiograph - An observational study.
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.
Shams Pirbhat, Mehdi Muhammad, Ali Jamshed, Ahmed Intisar, Saadia Sheema, Iqbal Sameen, Hameed Khan Aamir, Saeed Yawer
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based applications to identify cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are extremely useful in circumstances, where urgent device interrogation is needed, and a device identification card is not available. Few studies have provided insights regarding the utility of these applications. We have studied two widely available applications i.e., Pacemaker ID app (PMIDa) or Cardiac Rhythm Management Device-Finder (CRMD-f) to identify device manufacturers in CIEDs.
METHODS: 547 patients who underwent CIED implantation from the year 2016-2020 in our institute were enrolled. There were 438 Medtronic and 109 St. Jude's devices. All chest radiographs were de-identified and resized into 225*225 pixels focusing on the CIED. PMIDa and CRMD-f applications were used to identify the CIED. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for both applications were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: Overall, CRMD-f application has higher specificity (93.58 vs. 82.5%) but lower sensitivity (53.6 vs. 55%) than PMIDa. The accuracy of both applications was comparable (61.6% vs. 60.5%). Accuracy varied with CIED model and type tested, and radiograph projection used. Accuracy is greatest with Cardiac-Resynchronization-Therapy (CRT) devices for both applications, followed by a single lead pacemaker.
CONCLUSION: CRMD-f has higher accuracy and specificity for CIED manufacturer identification. Both PMIDa and CRMD-f are specific tools to identify CIED but have low sensitivity.
METHODS: 547 patients who underwent CIED implantation from the year 2016-2020 in our institute were enrolled. There were 438 Medtronic and 109 St. Jude's devices. All chest radiographs were de-identified and resized into 225*225 pixels focusing on the CIED. PMIDa and CRMD-f applications were used to identify the CIED. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value for both applications were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: Overall, CRMD-f application has higher specificity (93.58 vs. 82.5%) but lower sensitivity (53.6 vs. 55%) than PMIDa. The accuracy of both applications was comparable (61.6% vs. 60.5%). Accuracy varied with CIED model and type tested, and radiograph projection used. Accuracy is greatest with Cardiac-Resynchronization-Therapy (CRT) devices for both applications, followed by a single lead pacemaker.
CONCLUSION: CRMD-f has higher accuracy and specificity for CIED manufacturer identification. Both PMIDa and CRMD-f are specific tools to identify CIED but have low sensitivity.