Atman P Shah1, Stanley A Rubin. 1. Division of Cardiology, VA Greater Los Angeles and the Department of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 100 million computer-interpreted electrocardiograms (ECG-C) are obtained annually. However, there are few contemporary published data on the accuracy of cardiac rhythm interpretation by this method. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the accuracy of ECG-C rhythm interpretation in a typical patient population. METHODS: We compared the ECG-C rhythm interpretation to that of 2 expert overreaders in 2112 randomly selected standard 12-lead ECGs. RESULTS: The ECG-C correctly interpreted the rhythm in 1858 and incorrectly identified the rhythm in 254 (overall accuracy, 88.0%). Sinus rhythm was correctly interpreted in 95.0% of the ECGs (1666/1753) with this rhythm, whereas nonsinus rhythms were correctly interpreted with an accuracy of only 53.5% (192/359) (P < .0001). The ECG-C interpreted sinus rhythm with a sensitivity of 95% (confidence interval, 93.8-96.7), specificity of 66.3%, and positive predictive value of 93.2%. The ECG-C interpreted nonsinus rhythms with a sensitivity of 72%, (confidence interval, 68.7-73.7), a specificity of 93%, and a positive predictive value of 59.3%. Of the 254 ECGs that had incorrect rhythm interpretation, additional major errors were noted in 137 (54%). CONCLUSIONS: The ECG-C demonstrates frequent errors in the interpretation of nonsinus rhythms. In addition, incorrect rhythm interpretation by the ECG-C was frequently further compounded by additional major inaccuracies. Expert overreading of the ECG remains important in clinical settings with a high percentage of nonsinus rhythms.
BACKGROUND: More than 100 million computer-interpreted electrocardiograms (ECG-C) are obtained annually. However, there are few contemporary published data on the accuracy of cardiac rhythm interpretation by this method. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the accuracy of ECG-C rhythm interpretation in a typical patient population. METHODS: We compared the ECG-C rhythm interpretation to that of 2 expert overreaders in 2112 randomly selected standard 12-lead ECGs. RESULTS: The ECG-C correctly interpreted the rhythm in 1858 and incorrectly identified the rhythm in 254 (overall accuracy, 88.0%). Sinus rhythm was correctly interpreted in 95.0% of the ECGs (1666/1753) with this rhythm, whereas nonsinus rhythms were correctly interpreted with an accuracy of only 53.5% (192/359) (P < .0001). The ECG-C interpreted sinus rhythm with a sensitivity of 95% (confidence interval, 93.8-96.7), specificity of 66.3%, and positive predictive value of 93.2%. The ECG-C interpreted nonsinus rhythms with a sensitivity of 72%, (confidence interval, 68.7-73.7), a specificity of 93%, and a positive predictive value of 59.3%. Of the 254 ECGs that had incorrect rhythm interpretation, additional major errors were noted in 137 (54%). CONCLUSIONS: The ECG-C demonstrates frequent errors in the interpretation of nonsinus rhythms. In addition, incorrect rhythm interpretation by the ECG-C was frequently further compounded by additional major inaccuracies. Expert overreading of the ECG remains important in clinical settings with a high percentage of nonsinus rhythms.
Authors: David E Krummen; Mitul Patel; Hong Nguyen; Gordon Ho; Dhruv S Kazi; Paul Clopton; Marian C Holland; Scott L Greenberg; Gregory K Feld; Mitchell N Faddis; Sanjiv M Narayan Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-11
Authors: Mir Henglin; Gillian Stein; Pavel V Hushcha; Jasper Snoek; Alexander B Wiltschko; Susan Cheng Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Rajat Deo; Haochang Shou; Elsayed Z Soliman; Wei Yang; Joshua M Arkin; Xiaoming Zhang; Raymond R Townsend; Alan S Go; Michael G Shlipak; Harold I Feldman Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jochen D Muehlschlegel; Tjörvi E Perry; Kuang-Yu Liu; Luigino Nascimben; Amanda A Fox; Charles D Collard; Edwin G Avery; Sary F Aranki; Michael N D'Ambra; Stanton K Shernan; Simon C Body Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-04-30 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Awni Y Hannun; Pranav Rajpurkar; Masoumeh Haghpanahi; Geoffrey H Tison; Codie Bourn; Mintu P Turakhia; Andrew Y Ng Journal: Nat Med Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Erick A Perez Alday; Annie Gu; Amit J Shah; Chad Robichaux; An-Kwok Ian Wong; Chengyu Liu; Feifei Liu; Ali Bahrami Rad; Andoni Elola; Salman Seyedi; Qiao Li; Ashish Sharma; Gari D Clifford; Matthew A Reyna Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.833