Safe automatic one-lead electrocardiogram analysis in screening for atrial fibrillation
Why the study?
Does a computerized algorithm safely and accurately identify normal ECGs compared to manual interpretation in individuals undergoing intermittent one-lead ECG screening for atrial fibrillation?
Population
3,209 individuals without known atrial fibrillation participating in the STROKESTOP mass-screening study…
Comparison
Computerized algorithm for analyzing 30-s… vs Manual ECG analysis by specially trained nurses…
Design
Cross-sectional
Follow-up
2 weeks
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
May reduce ECG review workload in AF screening; leaves open effects on stroke outcomes.
Structured PICO
Does a computerized algorithm safely and accurately identify normal ECGs compared to manual interpretation in individuals undergoing intermittent one-lead ECG screening for atrial fibrillation?
P
Population
3,209 individuals without known atrial fibrillation participating in the STROKESTOP mass-screening study, who registered a 30-s ECG recording in Lead I two times daily for 2 weeks (total 80,149 ECG recordings).
I
Intervention
Computerized algorithm for analyzing 30-s intermittent one-lead ECG recordings
C
Comparator
Manual ECG analysis by specially trained nurses and physicians (gold standard)
O
Outcome
Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, negative predictive value) of the algorithm compared to manual interpretationsurrogate
An automatic computerized algorithm for one-lead ECG screening can safely identify normal ECGs, reducing the manual workload by >85% while maintaining 100% sensitivity for detecting patients with atrial fibrillation.
Cite This Study
Svennberg et al. (2016) studied this question.