Key result
Five 12-lead ECG algorithms show similar moderate diagnostic accuracy for differentiating RVOT arrhythmia origins.
Why the study?
To compare the predictive accuracy of five different ECG algorithms against successful ablation sites determined by 3D electroanatomical non-contact mapping in patients with RVOT tachycardias.
Do five different 12-lead ECG algorithms accurately predict the sublocalisation of right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia origin compared to 3D electroanatomical mapping in patients undergoing catheter ablation?
Observational (n=28)
No
Do five different 12-lead ECG algorithms accurately predict the sublocalisation of right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia origin compared to 3D electroanatomical mapping in patients undergoing catheter ablation?
p-value: p=0.99
Five commonly used 12-lead ECG algorithms for predicting RVOT arrhythmia origin demonstrated only moderate and statistically similar diagnostic accuracy when compared to 3D electroanatomical mapping.
ECG algorithms show only moderate accuracy for RVOT localization and should not yet guide ablation; leaves open development of superior criteria.
Purpose To compare the predictive accuracy of five different algorithms as verified by successful ablation site using 3D electroanatomical non-contact mapping in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic but high ventricular burden RVOT tachycardias. Methods 28 Consecutive patients admitted for radiofrequency catheter ablation for symptomatic and asymptomatic, but high ventricular burden idiopathic VPC were recruited for this study. All patients had previous failed or intolerant to beta-blocker and/or at least one class IC anti-arrhythmic agents, and they had normal left ventricular ejection fraction. All patients had documented monomorphic VPC with left bundle branch block morphology and an inferior axis. Concordance of the arrhythmia origin based on ECG algorithm and 3D mapping system site were further evaluated. Of the five algorithms, two algorithms with easy‐applicability and having a memorable design (Dixit and Joshi) and three algorithms with more complex and detailed design (Ito, Zhang, Pytkowski) were selected for comparisons. Results Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy showed that each of the five algorithms had only moderate accuracy, and the greatest accuracy was observed in the algorithm proposed by Pytkowski algorithm when assessed by a general cardiologist and Dixit algorithm when evaluated by the electrophysiologist. However, when the algorithms were compared for their accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, no significant differences were found ( p = 0.99). Conclusions The ECG based algorithms for precise localising RVOTA origin simplify the mapping process, reduce the procedural and fluoroscopic time, and improve clinical outcomes, resulting in greater clinical utility. All the five published 12-lead ECG algorithms for ROTVA differentiation were similar in terms of the diagnostic accuracy, specificity, sensitivity and LRs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prisecaru et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia (RVOTA) (n=28). Five 12-lead ECG algorithms (Ito, Dixit, Joshi, Zhang, Pytkowski) vs. 3D electroanatomical non-contact mapping was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for differentiating septal and free wall origin (p=0.99). The five 12-lead ECG algorithms for differentiating right ventricular outflow tract arrhythmia origin showed similar moderate diagnostic accuracy with no significant differences between them (p=0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: