Why the study?
Current 10-second ECG screening to measure the T:R ratio cannot reliably determine normal values due to temporal variations, risking T Wave Over Sensing and inappropriate S-ICD shocks.
Does a CNN-based model accurately predict T:R ratios from 10-second ECG segments to assess eligibility for S-ICD implantation?
Does a CNN-based model accurately predict T:R ratios from 10-second ECG segments to assess eligibility for S-ICD implantation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A novel deep learning tool utilizing phase space reconstruction matrices can predict T:R ratios from ECGs, potentially improving the reliability of S-ICD eligibility screening by mitigating the risk of T wave oversensing.
Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (S-ICDs) are used for prevention of sudden cardiac death triggered by ventricular arrhythmias. T Wave Over Sensing (TWOS) is an inherent risk with S-ICDs which can lead to inappropriate shocks. A major predictor of TWOS is a high T:R ratio (the ratio between the amplitudes of the T and R waves). Currently, patients' Electrocardiograms (ECGs) are screened over 10 s to measure the T:R ratio to determine the patients' eligibility for S-ICD implantation. Due to temporal variations in the T:R ratio, 10 s is not a long enough window to reliably determine the normal values of a patient's T:R ratio. In this paper, we develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) based model utilising phase space reconstruction matrices to predict T:R ratios from 10-second ECG segments without explicitly locating the R or T waves, thus avoiding the issue of TWOS. This tool can be used to automatically screen patients over a much longer period and provide an in-depth description of the behavior of the T:R ratio over that period. The tool can also enable much more reliable and descriptive screenings to better assess patients' eligibility for S-ICD implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: