Mayo Clinic VT calculator: A practical tool for accurate wide complex tachycardia differentiation.

The discrimination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) versus supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) via 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is crucial for achieving appropriate, high-quality, and cost-effective care in patients presenting with wide QRS complex tachycardia (WCT). Decades of rigorous research have brought forth an expanding arsenal of applicable manual algorithm methods for differentiating WCTs. However, these algorithms are limited by their heavy reliance on the ECG interpreter for their proper execution. Herein, we introduce the Mayo Clinic ventricular tachycardia calculator (MC-VTcalc) as a novel generalizable, accurate, and easy-to-use means to estimate VT probability independent of ECG interpreter competency. The MC-VTcalc, through the use of web-based and mobile device platforms, only requires the entry of computerized measurements (i.e., QRS duration, QRS axis, and T-wave axis) that are routinely displayed on standard 12-lead ECG recordings.

Computerized electrocardiogram data transformation enables effective algorithmic differentiation of wide QRS complex tachycardias.

BACKGROUND: Accurate 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. OBJECTIVE: Develop and trial novel WCT differentiation approaches for patients with and without a corresponding baseline ECG. METHODS: We 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). RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSION: Accurate WCT differentiation may be accomplished using computerized data of (i) the WCT ECG alone and (ii) paired WCT and baseline ECGs.

The emergence and destiny of automated methods to differentiate wide QRS complex tachycardias.

Accurate differentiation of wide complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) using non-invasive methods such as 12­lead electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is crucial in clinical practice. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential for automated approaches utilizing computerized ECG interpretation software to achieve accurate WCT differentiation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive analysis of contemporary automated methods for VT and SWCT differentiation. Our objectives include: (i) presenting a general overview of the emergence of automated WCT differentiation methods, (ii) examining the role of machine learning techniques in automated WCT differentiation, (iii) reviewing the electrophysiology concepts leveraged existing automated algorithms, (iv) discussing recently developed automated WCT differentiation solutions, and (v) considering future directions that will enable the successful integration of automated methods into computerized ECG interpretation platforms.

Automatic wide complex tachycardia differentiation using mathematically synthesized vectorcardiogram signals.

BACKGROUND: Automated 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: The 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). CONCLUSION: Custom calculations derived from mathematically synthesized VCG signals may be used to formulate an effective means to differentiate WCTs automatically.

Conceptual and literature basis for wide complex tachycardia and baseline ECG comparison.

Accurate wide QRS complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation into either ventricular tachycardia or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia using 12­lead electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is essential for diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic reasons. There is an ever-expanding variety of WCT differentiation methods and criteria available to clinicians. However, only a few make use of the diagnostic value of comparing the ECG during WCT to that of the patient's baseline ECG. Therefore, we highlight the conceptual rationale and scientific literature supporting the diagnostic value of WCT and baseline ECG comparison.

A lateral lead variant of the de Winter pattern due to left main stenosis and left anterior descending artery occlusion.

Early recognition of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction equivalent electrocardiogram patterns is of paramount importance. Successful identification of these ischemic patterns helps ensure proper triage of patients needing urgent restoration of coronary perfusion. The so-called de Winter sign has become increasingly recognized as a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction equivalent pattern due to proximal left anterior descending artery occlusion. Yet, despite the de Winter pattern's well-defined electrocardiographic-angiographic relationship, the electrophysiologic explanation for its characteristic electrocardiographic manifestations remains unclear. Herein, we report a case in which an ischemic lateral lead variant of the de Winter pattern emerged from a patient inflicted by an abrupt thrombotic occlusion of the ostial left anterior descending artery, which developed in series with a high-grade stenosis of the distal left main coronary artery. We examine the patient's presenting electrocardiographic findings and clinical course to (i) establish causal inferences that align with the distribution of myocardial ischemia supported by coronary angiography and (ii) provide an accompanying analysis of the relevant scientific literature.

Wide complex tachycardia differentiation: An examination of traditional and contemporary approaches.

Despite many technological advances in the field of cardiology, accurate differentiation of wide complex tachycardias into ventricular tachycardia or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia continues to be challenging. After decades of rigorous clinical research, a wide variety of electrocardiographic criteria and algorithms have been developed to provide an accurate means to distinguish these two entities as accurately as possible. Recently, promising automated differentiation methods that utilize computerized electrocardiographic interpretation software have emerged. In this review, we aim to (1) highlight the clinical importance of accurate wide complex tachycardia differentiation, (2) provide an overview of the conventional manually-applied differentiation algorithms, and (3) describe novel automated approaches to differentiate wide complex tachycardia.

Direct Comparison of Methods to Differentiate Wide Complex Tachycardias: Novel Automated Algorithms Versus Manual ECG Interpretation Approaches.

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.