Sodhi, Sandeep

BACKGROUND: Differentiating wide complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide tachycardia via 12-lead ECG interpretation is a crucial but difficult task. Automated algorithms show promise as alternatives to manual ECG interpretation, but direct comparison of their diagnostic performance has not been undertaken. METHODS: Two electrophysiologists applied 3 manual WCT differentiation approaches (ie, Brugada, Vereckei aVR, and VT score). Simultaneously, computerized data from paired WCT and baseline ECGs were processed by 5 automated WCT differentiation algorithms (WCT Formula, WCT Formula II, VT Prediction Model, Solo Model, and Paired Model). The diagnostic performance of automated algorithms was compared with manual ECG interpretation approaches. RESULTS: A total of 212 WCTs (111 VT and 101 supraventricular wide tachycardia) from 104 patients were analyzed. WCT Formula demonstrated superior accuracy (85.8%) and specificity (87.1%) compared with Brugada (75.2% and 57.4%, respectively) and Vereckei aVR (65.3% and 36.4%, respectively). WCT Formula II achieved higher accuracy (89.6%) and specificity (85.1%) against Brugada and Vereckei aVR. Performance metrics of the WCT Formula (accuracy 85.8%, sensitivity 84.7%, and specificity 87.1%) and WCT Formula II (accuracy 89.8%, sensitivity 89.6%, and specificity 85.1%) were similar to the VT score (accuracy 84.4%, sensitivity 93.8%, and specificity 74.2%). Paired Model was superior to Brugada in accuracy (89.6% versus 75.2%), specificity (97.0% versus 57.4%), and F1 score (0.89 versus 0.80). Paired Model surpassed Vereckei aVR in accuracy (89.6% versus 65.3%), specificity (97.0% versus 75.2%), and F1 score (0.89 versus 0.74). Paired Model demonstrated similar accuracy (89.6% versus 84.4%), inferior sensitivity (79.3% versus 93.8%), but superior specificity (97.0% versus 74.2%) to the VT score. Solo Model and VT Prediction Model accuracy (82.5% and 77.4%, respectively) was superior to the Vereckei aVR (65.3%) but similar to Brugada (75.2%) and the VT score (84.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Automated WCT differentiation algorithms demonstrated favorable diagnostic performance compared with traditional manual ECG interpretation approaches.

BACKGROUND: Differentiation of wide QRS complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide QRS tachycardia (SWCT) through 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is one of the most critical yet challenging tasks in clinical practice. Recent research highlights novel automated methods that successfully diagnose WCTs. We sought to directly compare the diagnostic efficacy of these novel automated WCT differentiation methods (i.e., WCT Formula, VT Prediction Model, and WCT Formula II) to traditional ECG interpretation approaches (i.e., Brugada and Vereckei aVR algorithms). METHODS: A collection of paired WCT and baselined ECGs were retrospectively analyzed. Next, an electrophysiologist blindly and prospectively applied the Brugada and Vereckei aVR algorithms. Separately, computerized measurements were used to apply the three automated WCT differentiation methods. The diagnostic performance of each method was then evaluated. RESULTS: 213 WCTs (111 VT and 102 SWCT) from 105 patients were analyzed. The WCT Formula demonstrated superior overall accuracy (84.7% vs. 64.8%), specificity (86.2% vs. 35.3%), positive predictive value (PPV) (85.7% vs. 60.7%), and positive (+) likelihood ratio (LR) (6.06 vs. 1.42) compared to Vereckei aVR algorithm. Similarly, the WCT Formula attained higher specificity (86.2% vs. 61.8%), PPV (85.7% vs. 71.9%), and (+) LR (6.06 vs. 2.36) than the Brugada algorithm. The WCT Formula II demonstrated superior overall accuracy (89.2% vs. 64.8%), specificity (84.3 % vs. 35.3%), PPV (86.7% vs. 60.7%), and positive (+) LR (5.97 vs.1.42) compared to Vereckei aVR algorithm as well as higher specificity (84.3 % vs. 61.8 %), PPV (86.7% vs. 71.9%), and (+) LR (5.97 vs. 2.36) than the Brugada algorithm. The VT prediction model yielded superior specificity (79.4% vs. 35.3%), PPV (79.8 vs. 60.7%) and (+) LR (3.63 vs.1.42) compared to the Vereckei aVR algorithm but did not demonstrate superior diagnostic performance to the Brugada algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Novel automated WCT differentiation methods achieved similar or superior diagnostic performance metrics compared to traditional ECG interpretation approaches.

AbstractBackgroundAccurate automated wide QRS complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) can be accomplished using calculations derived from computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) data of paired WCT and baseline ECGs.ObjectiveDevelop and trial novel WCT differentiation approaches for patients with and without a corresponding baseline ECG.MethodsWe developed and trialed WCT differentiation models comprised of novel and previously described parameters derived from WCT and baseline ECG data. In Part 1, a derivation cohort was used to evaluate five different classification models: logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (ANN), Random Forests [RF], support vector machine (SVM), and ensemble learning (EL). In Part 2, a separate validation cohort was used to prospectively evaluate the performance of two LR models using parameters generated from the WCT ECG alone (Solo Model) and paired WCT and baseline ECGs (Paired Model).ResultsOf the 421 patients of the derivation cohort (Part 1), a favorable area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) by all modeling subtypes: LR (0.96), ANN (0.96), RF (0.96), SVM (0.96), and EL (0.97). Of the 235 patients of the validation cohort (Part 2), the Solo Model and Paired Model achieved a favorable AUC for 103 patients with (Solo Model 0.87; Paired Model 0.95) and 132 patients without (Solo Model 0.84; Paired Model 0.95) a corroborating electrophysiology procedure or intracardiac device recording.ConclusionAccurate WCT differentiation may be accomplished using computerized data of (i) the WCT ECG alone and (ii) paired WCT and baseline ECGs.

AbstractBackgroundAutomated wide complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) may be accomplished using novel calculations that quantify the extent of mean electrical vector changes between the WCT and baseline electrocardiogram (ECG). At present, it is unknown whether quantifying mean electrical vector changes within three orthogonal vectorcardiogram (VCG) leads (X, Y, and Z leads) can improve automated VT and SWCT classification.MethodsA derivation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was used to derive five logistic regression models: (i) one novel WCT differentiation model (i.e., VCG Model), (ii) three previously developed WCT differentiation models (i.e., WCT Formula, VT Prediction Model, and WCT Formula II), and (iii) one “all‐inclusive” model (i.e., Hybrid Model). A separate validation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was used to trial and compare each model's performance.ResultsThe VCG Model, composed of WCT QRS duration, baseline QRS duration, absolute change in QRS duration, X‐lead QRS amplitude change, Y‐lead QRS amplitude change, and Z‐lead QRS amplitude change, demonstrated effective WCT differentiation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.94) for the derivation cohort. For the validation cohort, the diagnostic performance of the VCG Model (AUC 0.94) was similar to that achieved by the WCT Formula (AUC 0.95), VT Prediction Model (AUC 0.91), WCT Formula II (AUC 0.94), and Hybrid Model (AUC 0.95).ConclusionCustom calculations derived from mathematically synthesized VCG signals may be used to formulate an effective means to differentiate WCTs automatically.