Key result
The automated paced fractionation detection algorithm identified relevant electrogram features with 92.16% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to manual annotation, while reducing analysis time from 69.8 seconds to 0.15 seconds.
Why the study?
Does a fully automated fractionation detection algorithm improve detection time while maintaining accuracy compared to manual annotation in patients with ventricular tachycardia?
Observational (n=6)
No
Does a fully automated fractionation detection algorithm improve detection time while maintaining accuracy compared to manual annotation in patients with ventricular tachycardia?
A novel automated algorithm for detecting paced electrogram fractionation in VT patients significantly reduces analysis time while maintaining high correlation with manual annotation.
May expedite VT electrogram analysis; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Catheter ablation therapy has become a key intervention in treatment of ventriculartachycardia (VT). However, current fractionation mapping methods used to isolate the ablation targets in VT patients are done manually, and are therefore time consuming. They also have limited success rates (50% recurrence rate within 2 years). We present a fully automated fractionation detection algorithm for patients with VT which expands on previously defined fractionation features and which substantially decreases associated study times. Paced electrogram signals were collected from six patients during electrophysiologic study according to a modified paced electrogram fractionation analysis protocol. Data were exported and analyzed offline using custom written software. Electrograms from right ventricular pacing catheter were used as reference. Surface electrograms, along with ventricular geometry and relative catheter locations, were used to identify physiological interference and physiologically irrelevant features. A total of 264 electrograms, collected from a roving catheter, were manually and automatically annotated for fractionation as defined by three features: conduction time (CT), electrogram duration (ED), and number of deflections (ND). Of these, 60 were selected manually to have no discernable features and were successfully discarded by our algorithm; yielding a specificity of 100%. Of the remaining 204, 16 were erroneously discarded by our algorithm; yielding a sensitivity of 92.16%. A comparison between annotations showed correlations of 0.98, 0.97, and 0.94 for AL, ED, and ND respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Ventricular Tachycardia (n=6). Automated paced fractionation detection algorithm vs. Manual annotation was evaluated on Sensitivity of automated fractionation detection. The automated paced fractionation detection algorithm identified relevant electrogram features with 92.16% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to manual annotation, while reducing analysis time from 69.8 seconds to 0.15 seconds.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: