Key result
Automated open-source ECG digitizer shows high agreement with digital ECGs, yielding a 2.5° bias.
Why the study?
An automated, open-source ECG-digitizing tool was needed to assess agreement of ECG measurements across digitally recorded and digitized ECGs.
Observational (n=230)
No
Mean Difference: 2.5 (95% CI -7.9–13)
A newly developed open-source software tool for paper-ECG digitization showed high agreement with digitally recorded ECGs, though asynchronous leads introduced measurement disagreement.
Background We aimed to develop and validate an automated, open-source code ECG-digitizing tool and assess agreements of ECG measurements across three types of median beats, comprised of digitally recorded, simultaneous and asynchronous ECG leads and digitized asynchronous ECG leads. Methods We used the data of clinical studies participants (n=230; mean age 30±15 y; 25% female; 52% had the cardiovascular disease) with available both digitally recorded and printed on paper and then scanned ECGs, split into development (n=150) and validation (n=80) datasets. The agreement between ECG and VCG measurements on the digitally recorded time-coherent median beat, representative asynchronous digitized, and digitally recorded beats was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Results Agreement between digitally recorded and digitized representative beat was high [area spatial ventricular gradient (SVG) elevation bias 2.5(95% limits of agreement [LOA] -7.9-13.0)°; precision 96.8%; inter-class correlation [ICC] 0.988; Lin’s concordance coefficient ρ c 0.97(95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.98)]. Agreement between digitally recorded asynchronous and time-coherent median beats was moderate for area-based VCG metrics (spatial QRS-T angle bias 1.4(95%LOA -33.2-30.3)°; precision 94.8%; ICC 0.95; Lin’s concordance coefficient ρ c 0.90(95%CI 0.82-0.95)], but poor for peak-based VCG metrics of global electrical heterogeneity. Conclusions We developed and validated an open-source software tool for paper-ECG digitization. Asynchronous ECG leads are the primary source of disagreement in measurements on digitally recorded and digitized ECGs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fortune et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease (n=230). Automated open-source ECG-digitizing tool vs. Digitally recorded ECGs was evaluated on Agreement between digitally recorded and digitized representative beat (area spatial ventricular gradient elevation) (bias 2.5°, 95% CI -7.9-13.0). The automated open-source ECG-digitizing tool demonstrated high agreement with digitally recorded ECGs for representative beats, with an area spatial ventricular gradient elevation bias of 2.5°.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: