Kashou, Anthony H.

Background: Identification of systolic heart failure among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute dyspnea is challenging. The reasons for dyspnea are often multifactorial. A focused physical evaluation and diagnostic testing can lack sensitivity and specificity. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of an artificial intelligence-enabled ECG to identify patients presenting with dyspnea who have left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Methods: We retrospectively applied a validated artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of LVSD (defined as LV ejection fraction ≤35%) to a cohort of patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated in the ED at a Mayo Clinic site with dyspnea. Patients were included if they had at least one standard 12-lead ECG acquired on the date of the ED visit and an echocardiogram performed within 30 days of presentation. Patients with prior LVSD were excluded. We assessed the model performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: A total of 1606 patients were included. Median time from ECG to echocardiogram was 1 day (Q1: 1, Q3: 2). The artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm identified LVSD with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86–0.91) and accuracy of 85.9%. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 74%, 87%, 97%, and 40%, respectively. To identify an ejection fraction <50%, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83–0.88), 86%, 63%, and 91%, respectively. NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) alone at a cutoff of >800 identified LVSD with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76–0.84). Conclusions: The ECG is an inexpensive, ubiquitous, painless test which can be quickly obtained in the ED. It effectively identifies LVSD in selected patients presenting to the ED with dyspnea when analyzed with artificial intelligence and outperforms NT-proBNP. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Abstract The primary goal of the initial ECG evaluation of every wide complex tachycardia is to determine whether the tachyarrhythmia has a ventricular or supraventricular origin. The answer to this question drives immediate patient care decisions, ensuing clinical workup, and long‐term management strategies. Thus, the importance of arriving at the correct diagnosis cannot be understated and has naturally spurred rigorous research, which has brought forth an ever‐expanding abundance of manually applied and automated methods to differentiate wide complex tachycardias. In this review, we provide an in‐depth analysis of traditional and more contemporary methods to differentiate ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular wide complex tachycardia. In doing so, we: (1) review hallmark wide complex tachycardia differentiation criteria, (2) examine the conceptual and structural design of standard wide complex tachycardia differentiation methods, (3) discuss practical limitations of manually applied ECG interpretation approaches, and (4) highlight recently formulated methods designed to differentiate ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular wide complex tachycardia automatically.

AbstractBackgroundThe accurate separation of undifferentiated wide complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) using conventional, manually‐applied 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation methods is difficult.PurposeWe sought to devise a new WCT differentiation method that operates solely on automated measurements routinely provided by computerized ECG interpretation software.MethodsIn a two‐part analysis, we developed and validated a logistic regression model (ie, VT Prediction Model) that utilizes routinely available computerized measurements derived from patients' paired WCT and baseline ECGs.ResultsThe derivation cohort consisted of 601 paired WCT (273 VT, 328 SWCT) and baseline ECGs from 421 patients. The VT Prediction Model, composed of WCT QRS duration (ms) (P < .0001), QRS duration change (ms) (P < .0001), QRS axis change (°) (P < .0001) and T axis change (°) (P < .0001), yielded effective VT and SWCT differentiation (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.924; confidence interval [CI]: 0.903‐0.944) for the derivation cohort. The validation cohort comprised 241 paired WCT (97 VT, 144 SWCT) and baseline ECGs from 177 patients. The VT Prediction Model's implementation on the validation cohort yielded effective WCT differentiation (AUC: 0.900; CI: 0.862‐0.939) with overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 85.0%, 80.4%, and 88.2%, respectively.ConclusionThe VT Prediction Model is an example of how readily available ECG measurements may be used to distinguish VT and SWCT effectively. Further study is needed to develop and refine newer WCT differentiation approaches that utilize computerized measurements provided by ECG interpretation software.

ABSTRACT Atrial fibrillation (AF) in lifetime athletes (e.g., ≥5 years of participation) is a growing concern but remains enigmatic. Intriguingly, a direct relationship between lifetime training hours and risk of developing AF exists. Professionals in exercise and sport science are at the forefront to help recognize symptoms and direct the athlete to appropriate medical clinicians for expedient care. Although AF in athletes is usually not accompanied by structural heart disease or stroke risk factors (i.e., termed lone AF), it may, nonetheless, pose health risks. In this study, we review various types of AF, proposed mechanisms, and treatment strategies for athletes with AF.