Why the study?
The study evaluated a deep learning tool measuring T:R ratio fluctuations during prolonged screening to identify a threshold that detects patients at high risk of T-wave oversensing without inappropriately excluding true S-ICD candidates.
Does a deep learning-based tool assessing T:R ratio over 24-hour Holter recordings identify patients at high risk of T-wave oversensing for S-ICD eligibility?
Does a deep learning-based tool assessing T:R ratio over 24-hour Holter recordings identify patients at high risk of T-wave oversensing for S-ICD eligibility?
Prolonged 24-hour screening using a deep learning tool suggests the optimal T:R ratio cut-off for S-ICD eligibility to prevent T-wave oversensing lies between 1:3 and 1:1.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May expand S-ICD eligibility at T:R 1:1 on 24-hour Holter; leaves open prospective validation of the deep learning tool.
BACKGROUND: A major predictor of eligibility of subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICD) is the T:R ratio. The eligibility cut-off of the T:R ratio incorporates a safety margin to accommodate for fluctuations of ECG signal amplitudes. We introduce a deep learning-based tool that accurately measures the degree of T:R ratio fluctuations and explore its role in S-ICD screening. METHODS: Patients were fitted with Holters for 24 h to record their S-ICD vectors. Our tool was used to assess the T:R ratio over the duration of the recordings. Multiple T:R ratio cut-off values were applied, identifying patients at high risk of T-wave oversensing (TWO) at each of the proposed values. The purpose of our study is to identify the ratio that recognises patients at high risk of TWO while not inappropriately excluding true S-ICD candidates. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (age 54.5 + / - 21.3 years, 64.8% male) were recruited. Fourteen patients had heart-failure, 7 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 7 had normal hearts, 6 had congenital heart disease, and 3 had prior inappropriate S-ICD shocks due to TWO. 54% of patients passed the screening at a T: R of 1:3. All patients passed the screening at a T: R of 1:1. The only subgroup to wholly pass the screening utilising all the proposed ratios are the participants with normal hearts. CONCLUSION: We propose adopting prolonged screening to select patients eligible for S-ICD with low probability of TWO and inappropriate shocks. The appropriate T:R ratio likely lies between 1:3 and 1:1. Further studies are required to identify the optimal screening thresholds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ElRefai et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: