Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram to distinguish atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia from atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia.

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.

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 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.