Why the study?
Does an artificial neural network improve the detection of acute myocardial infarction in ECGs with left bundle branch block compared to conventional criteria and experienced cardiologists?
Does an artificial neural network improve the detection of acute myocardial infarction in ECGs with left bundle branch block compared to conventional criteria and experienced cardiologists?
Artificial neural networks can detect acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block with higher sensitivity than experienced cardiologists and conventional ECG criteria.
Should not yet change ECG interpretation in LBBB; leaves open prospective validation of neural networks.
The prognosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves by early revascularization. However the presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) in the electrocardiogram (ECG) increases the difficulty in recognizing an AMI and different ECG criteria for the diagnosis of AMI have proved to be of limited value. The purpose of this study was to detect AMI in ECGs with LBBB using artificial neural networks and to compare the performance of the networks to that of six sets of conventional ECG criteria and two experienced cardiologists. A total of 518 ECGs, recorded at an emergency department, with a QRS duration > 120 ms and an LBBB configuration, were selected from the clinical ECG database. Of this sample 120 ECGs were recorded on patients with AMI, the remaining 398 ECGs being used as a control group. Artificial neural networks of feed-forward type were trained to classify the ECGs as AMI or not AMI. The neural network showed higher sensitivities than both the cardiologists and the criteria when compared at the same levels of specificity. The sensitivity of the neural network was 12% (P = 0.02) and 19% (P = 0.001) higher than that of the cardiologists. Artificial neural networks can be trained to detect AMI in ECGs with concomitant LBBB more effectively than conventional ECG criteria or experienced cardiologists.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olsson et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: