RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Taquicardia Supraventricular , Taquicardia Ventricular , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Eletrocardiografia , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Taquicardia Supraventricular/diagnóstico , Taquicardia Ventricular/diagnósticoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Taquicardia Supraventricular , Taquicardia Ventricular , Algoritmos , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Eletrocardiografia , Humanos , Taquicardia Supraventricular/diagnóstico , Taquicardia Ventricular/diagnósticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Differentiation of wide complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) using conventional manually-operated electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation methods is difficult. Recent research has shown that accurate WCT differentiation may be accomplished by automated approaches (e.g., WCT Formula) implemented by computerized ECG interpretation software. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a new automated means to differentiate WCTs. METHODS: First, a derivation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was examined to secure independent VT predictors to be incorporated into a logistic regression model (i.e., WCT Formula II). Second, the WCT Formula II was trialed against a separate validation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs. RESULTS: The derivation cohort comprised 317 paired WCT (157 VT, 160 SWCT) and baseline ECGs. The WCT Formula II was composed of baseline QRS duration (p = 0.02), WCT QRS duration (p < 0.001), frontal percent time-voltage area change (p < 0.001), and horizontal percent time-voltage area change (p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for VT and SWCT differentiation was 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.98) for the derivation cohort. The validation cohort consisted of 284 paired WCT (116 VT, 168 SWCT) and baseline ECGs. WCT Formula II implementation on the validation cohort yielded effective WCT differentiation (AUC 0.96; 95% CI 0.94-0.98). CONCLUSION: The WCT Formula II is an example of how contemporary ECG interpretation software could be used to differentiate WCTs successfully.