Why the study?
Risk stratification for tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy remains poorly understood, motivating evaluation of AI-ECG versus NT-proBNP in predicting systolic dysfunction during atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response.
Does AI-ECG improve the prediction of reduced LVEF (<35%) compared to NT-proBNP in patients with atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular response?
Population
11,801 adult patients with atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular response without known HFrEF
Comparison
AI-ECG vs NT-proBNP
Design
Retrospective study
Key result
AI-ECG was superior to NT-proBNP in predicting left ventricular ejection fraction <35% among patients with atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular response (AUC 0.72 vs 0.59; accuracy 77% vs 47%).
Authors
Loading...
AI ECG may aid LVEF screening from routine ECGs; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Observational (n=11,801)
Yes
Does AI-ECG improve the prediction of reduced LVEF (<35%) compared to NT-proBNP in patients with atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular response?
Absolute Event Rate: 77% vs 47%
AI-ECG is superior to NT-proBNP for predicting left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients presenting with atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular response, offering a rapid screening tool to guide management.
Baqal et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (n=11,801). AI-ECG vs. NT-proBNP was evaluated on Predicting LVEF <35%. AI-ECG was superior to NT-proBNP in predicting left ventricular ejection fraction <35% among patients with atrial fibrillation and rapid ventricular response (AUC 0.72 vs 0.59; accuracy 77% vs 47%).