Why the study?
Deep learning models trained on raw ECG might improve detection of AF events and estimation of AF burden compared with methods using beat-to-beat interval variation time series.
Does ArNet-ECG improve the detection of atrial fibrillation compared to ArNet2 in adult patients?
Does ArNet-ECG improve the detection of atrial fibrillation compared to ArNet2 in adult patients?
A deep learning algorithm utilizing raw ECG data (ArNet-ECG) demonstrated superior performance in detecting atrial fibrillation compared to beat-to-beat interval methods, largely due to better detection of atrial flutter.
May aid AF detection in monitoring; leaves open prospective validation and outcome impact.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent heart arrhythmia. AF manifests on the electrocardiogram (ECG) though irregular beat-to-beat time interval variation, the absence of P-wave and the presence of fibrillatory waves (f-wave). We hypothesize that a deep learning (DL) approach trained on the raw ECG will enable robust detection of AF events and the estimation of the AF burden (AFB). We further hypothesize that the performance reached leveraging the raw ECG will be superior to previously developed methods using the beat-to-beat interval variation time series. Consequently, we develop a new DL algorithm, denoted ArNet-ECG, to robustly detect AF events and estimate the AFB from the raw ECG and benchmark this algorithms against previous work. Methods: A dataset including 2,247 adult patients and totaling over 53,753 hours of continuous ECG from the University of Virginia (UVAF) was used. Results: ArNet-ECG obtained an F1 of 0.96 and ArNet2 obtained an F1 0.94. Discussion and conclusion: ArNet-ECG outperformed ArNet2 thus demonstrating that using the raw ECG provides added performance over the beat-to-beat interval time series. The main reason found for explaining the higher performance of ArNet-ECG was its high performance on atrial flutter examples versus poor performance on these recordings for ArNet2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ben-Moshe et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: