Key result
A quantitative computerized algorithm improved diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation (92% vs 76%, P<0.01) and typical atrial flutter without classic features (83% vs 0%, P=0.03).
Why the study?
Does a quantitative computerized algorithm improve diagnostic accuracy of atrial tachyarrhythmias compared to visual interpretation in patients referred for EPS?
Observational (n=122)
Blinded
Yes
Does a quantitative computerized algorithm improve diagnostic accuracy of atrial tachyarrhythmias compared to visual interpretation in patients referred for EPS?
Absolute Event Rate: 92% vs 76%
p-value: p=<0.01
A quantitative computerized algorithm significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of atrial tachyarrhythmias from surface ECGs compared to visual interpretation, potentially leading to cost savings and improved patient outcomes.
May improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce costs in atrial tachyarrhythmia care; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm outcome benefits.
UNLABELLED: Quantitative ECG Analysis. INTRODUCTION: Optimal atrial tachyarrhythmia management is facilitated by accurate electrocardiogram interpretation, yet typical atrial flutter (AFl) may present without sawtooth F-waves or RR regularity, and atrial fibrillation (AF) may be difficult to separate from atypical AFl or rapid focal atrial tachycardia (AT). We analyzed whether improved diagnostic accuracy using a validated analysis tool significantly impacts costs and patient care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective, blinded, multicenter study using a novel quantitative computerized algorithm to identify atrial tachyarrhythmia mechanism from the surface ECG in patients referred for electrophysiology study (EPS). In 122 consecutive patients (age 60 ± 12 years) referred for EPS, 91 sustained atrial tachyarrhythmias were studied. ECGs were also interpreted by 9 physicians from 3 specialties for comparison and to allow healthcare system modeling. Diagnostic accuracy was compared to the diagnosis at EPS. A Markov model was used to estimate the impact of improved arrhythmia diagnosis. We found 13% of typical AFl ECGs had neither sawtooth flutter waves nor RR regularity, and were misdiagnosed by the majority of clinicians (0/6 correctly diagnosed by consensus visual interpretation) but correctly by quantitative analysis in 83% (5/6, P = 0.03). AF diagnosis was also improved through use of the algorithm (92%) versus visual interpretation (primary care: 76%, P < 0.01). Economically, we found that these improvements in diagnostic accuracy resulted in an average cost-savings of $1,303 and 0.007 quality-adjusted-life-years per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Typical AFl and AF are frequently misdiagnosed using visual criteria. Quantitative analysis improves diagnostic accuracy and results in improved healthcare costs and patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krummen et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Atrial tachyarrhythmias (n=122). Quantitative computerized algorithm vs. Consensus visual interpretation was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation (p=<0.01). A quantitative computerized algorithm improved diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation (92% vs 76%, P<0.01) and typical atrial flutter without classic features (83% vs 0%, P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: