Literature DB >> 12049375

Comparison of the performance of three diagnostic algorithms for regular broad complex tachycardia in practical application.

Ernest W Lau1, G André Ng.   

Abstract

The authors previously proposed a Bayesian approach to the electrocardiographic diagnosis of regular broad complex tachycardia (BCT), which can be due to VT or supraventricular tachycardia with aberrant conduction (SVTAC). They also published an account comparing the theoretical merits in the design of two of the most commonly used diagnostic algorithms for the same purpose, those of Brugada et al. and Griffith et al. In this study, a direct head-to-head comparison was performed on the practical performances of the three algorithms in this study. A set of 111 ECGs showing regular BCT (77 VT, 34 SVTAC) whose diagnoses were confirmed by electrophysiological study was shown to five internists in general medicine at a district general hospital. The observers were asked to comment on whether the ECG criteria in the three algorithms tested were fulfilled or not, and a computer program then derived the corresponding diagnoses. The sensitivity and specificity for VT achieved by the Brugada algorithm were 92% and 44%, 92% and 44% by the Griffith algorithm, and 97% and 56% by the Bayesian algorithm. The Bayesian algorithm achieved a higher sensitivity and specificity than the other two algorithms, but the differences are not statistically significant (P = 0.6583 and P = 0.5334, respectively). The Brugada, Griffith, and Bayesian algorithms show comparable performances in terms of overall sensitivity and specificity when tested in practice. Of the three algorithms, the Griffith algorithm excels in simplicity and is the easiest to implement in practice. The Bayesian algorithm achieved slightly higher values for sensitivity and specificity than the Brugada and Griffith algorithms but may be more suitable for automated computer-aided diagnosis of ECG due to its complexity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12049375     DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2002.00822.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  6 in total

1.  A tale of two tachycardias.

Authors:  Colin Yeo; Jeremy Chow; Gerard Leong; Kah Leng Ho
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.858

2.  The accuracy of the Edinburgh visual loss diagnostic algorithm.

Authors:  C Goudie; A Khan; C Lowe; M Wright
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  The accuracy of the Edinburgh Red Eye Diagnostic Algorithm.

Authors:  H Timlin; L Butler; M Wright
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Wide Complex Tachycardia - Ventricular Tachycardia or Not Ventricular Tachycardia, That Remains the Question.

Authors:  John B Garner; John M Miller
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2013-04

5.  Utility of Inferior Lead Q-waveforms in diagnosing Ventricular Tachycardia.

Authors:  Swathi Subramany; Ajoe John Kattoor; Swathi Kovelamudi; Subodh Devabhaktuni; Jawahar L Mehta; Srikanth Vallurupalli; Hakan Paydak; Naga Venkata K Pothineni
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Cardiol       Date:  2020-08-30

Review 6.  Differentiating wide complex tachycardias: A historical perspective.

Authors:  Anthony H Kashou; Christopher M Evenson; Peter A Noseworthy; Thoddi R Muralidharan; Christopher V DeSimone; Abhishek J Deshmukh; Samuel J Asirvatham; Adam M May
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2020-09-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.