Key result
ECG multiscale entropy identifies sudden cardiac death risk with ~67% sensitivity and low false alarms.
Why the study?
Complexity measures based on entropy in natural time and its time reversal can provide complementary information to standard heart rate variability metrics for ECG analysis.
Observational (n=134)
Λl at scale 49 may discriminate SCD on ECG; leaves open prospective validation before any clinical use.
The entropy S in natural time as well as the entropy in natural time under time reversal have already found useful applications in the physics of complex systems, e.g. , in the analysis of electrocardiograms (ECGs). Here, we focus on the complexity measures which result upon considering how the statistics of the time series changes upon varying the scale l . These scale-specific measures are ratios of the standard deviations and hence independent of the mean value and the standard deviation of the data. They focus on the different dynamics that appear on different scales. For this reason, they can be considered complementary to other standard measures of heart rate variability in ECG, like SDNN, as well as other complexity measures already defined in natural time. An application to the analysis of ECG —when solely using NN intervals— is presented: We show how can be used to separate ECG of healthy individuals from those suffering from congestive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarlis et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Congestive Heart Failure and Sudden Cardiac Death (n=134). Natural time entropy complexity measure (Λl) vs. Standard time domain parameters (e.g., SDNN) / Healthy controls was evaluated on Discrimination between healthy, congestive heart failure, and sudden cardiac death groups using ROC analysis of complexity measures. The multiscale entropy complexity measure Λl applied to ECG time series discriminated sudden cardiac death individuals from healthy and heart failure subjects with roughly 67% sensitivity and a 3% false alarm rate at scale l=49.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: