Key result
A machine learning classifier using 12-lead ECG signals achieved 76.3% accuracy in localizing atrial flutter mechanisms compared to 44.7% by physician interpretation.
Why the study?
Intra-cardiac mapping and catheter ablation for atrial flutter are often performed without prior knowledge of the underlying mechanism, likely prolonging invasive procedure times.
Does a machine learning-based algorithm using 12-lead ECGs improve the localization of atrial flutter substrates in patients with atrial flutter?
Observational (n=115)
No
Does a machine learning-based algorithm using 12-lead ECGs improve the localization of atrial flutter substrates in patients with atrial flutter?
A machine learning classifier using non-invasive 12-lead ECG signals can accurately identify the anatomical location of atrial flutter mechanisms, potentially aiding in pre-procedural planning for catheter ablation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May assist ECG localization of atrial flutter mechanisms; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Aims Atrial flutter (AFlut) is a common re-entrant atrial tachycardia driven by self-sustainable mechanisms that cause excitations to propagate along pathways different from sinus rhythm. Intra-cardiac electrophysiological mapping and catheter ablation are often performed without detailed prior knowledge of the mechanism perpetuating AFlut, likely prolonging the procedure time of these invasive interventions. We sought to discriminate the AFlut location [cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent (CTI), peri-mitral, and other left atrium (LA) AFlut classes] with a machine learning-based algorithm using only the non-invasive signals from the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). Methods and results Hybrid 12-lead ECG dataset of 1769 signals was used (1424 in silico ECGs, and 345 clinical ECGs from 115 patients—three different ECG segments over time were extracted from each patient corresponding to single AFlut cycles). Seventy-seven features were extracted. A decision tree classifier with a hold-out classification approach was trained, validated, and tested on the dataset randomly split after selecting the most informative features. The clinical test set comprised 38 patients (114 clinical ECGs). The classifier yielded 76.3% accuracy on the clinical test set with a sensitivity of 89.7%, 75.0%, and 64.1% and a positive predictive value of 71.4%, 75.0%, and 86.2% for CTI, peri-mitral, and other LA class, respectively. Considering majority vote of the three segments taken from each patient, the CTI class was correctly classified at 92%. Conclusion Our results show that a machine learning classifier relying only on non-invasive signals can potentially identify the location of AFlut mechanisms. This method could aid in planning and tailoring patient-specific AFlut treatments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luongo et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Atrial flutter (n=115). Machine learning decision tree classifier vs. Physician interpretation was evaluated on Classification accuracy for atrial flutter location on the clinical test set. A machine learning classifier using 12-lead ECG signals achieved 76.3% accuracy in localizing atrial flutter mechanisms compared to 44.7% by physician interpretation.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: