Key result
Computer-based ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were incorrect in 9.0% of cases, leading to inappropriate anticoagulant treatment in 12 patients.
Why the study?
Data regarding the incidence of misdiagnosed atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in primary care were lacking.
What is the incidence and clinical consequence of incorrect computer-based ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in primary care?
Observational (n=988)
What is the incidence and clinical consequence of incorrect computer-based ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in primary care?
Computer-based ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or flutter in primary care are incorrect in nearly 10% of cases and are often uncorrected by physicians, which can lead to inappropriate anticoagulation.
May warrant verification of automated AF diagnoses before anticoagulation; extends evidence on ECG algorithm limitations in primary care.
Objective: To describe the incidence of incorrect computerized ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in a Swedish primary care population, the rate of correction of computer misinterpretations, and the consequences of misdiagnosis.Design: Retrospective expert re-analysis of ECGs with a computer-suggested diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.Setting: Primary health care in Region Kronoberg, Sweden.Subjects: All adult patients who had an ECG recorded between January 2016 and June 2016 with a computer statement including the words ‘atrial fibrillation’ or ‘atrial flutter’.Main outcome measures: Number of incorrect computer interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter; rate of correction by the interpreting primary care physician; consequences of misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.Results: Among 988 ECGs with a computer diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, 89 (9.0%) were incorrect, among which 36 were not corrected by the interpreting physician. In 12 cases, misdiagnosed atrial fibrillation/flutter led to inappropriate treatment with anticoagulant therapy. A larger proportion of atrial flutters, 27 out of 80 (34%), than atrial fibrillations, 62 out of 908 (7%), were incorrectly diagnosed by the computer.Conclusions: Among ECGs with a computer-based diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the diagnosis was incorrect in almost 10%. In almost half of the cases, the misdiagnosis was not corrected by the overreading primary-care physician. Twelve patients received inappropriate anticoagulant treatment as a result of misdiagnosis.Key pointsData regarding the incidence of misdiagnosed atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in primary care are lacking. In a Swedish primary care setting, computer-based ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were incorrect in 89 of 988 (9.0%) consecutive cases.Incorrect computer diagnoses of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were not corrected by the primary-care physician in 47% of cases.In 12 of the cases with an incorrect computer rhythm diagnosis, misdiagnosed atrial fibrillation or flutter led to inappropriate treatment with anticoagulant therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lindow et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (n=988). Computer-based ECG interpretation vs. Expert re-analysis was evaluated on Incorrect computer interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Computer-based ECG interpretations of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were incorrect in 9.0% of cases, leading to inappropriate anticoagulant treatment in 12 patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: