Why the study?
How do different area-of-difference methods compare in detecting ventricular tachycardia using morphology?
How do different area-of-difference methods compare in detecting ventricular tachycardia using morphology?
While area-of-difference algorithms for VT detection perform similarly, those independent of baseline changes are more sensitive to template misalignment.
Baseline-independent algorithms warrant alignment checks in VT detection; leaves open device-specific validation trials.
To improve the detection of pathological tachycardias by implantable antitachycardia devices, techniques based on changes in intraventricular electrograms during sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia (VT) are proposed. The area of difference (AD), among the simplest of these proposed methods, sums the absolute difference between the stored template and each electrogram under analysis. To determine whether amplitude and/or baseline fluctuations might affect the results, four area methods were compared. The normalized area of difference (NAD) is independent of amplitude changes, the mean area of difference (MAD) is independent of baseline changes, the normalized mean area of difference (NMAD) is independent of both amplitude and baseline changes, and AD is dependent on both amplitude and baseline changes. The results indicate that the results of the four algorithms are very similar, but algorithms independent of baseline changes are more sensitive to template misalignment.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Throne et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: