UNLABELLED: Quantitative ECG Analysis. INTRODUCTION: Optimal atrial tachyarrhythmia management is facilitated by accurate electrocardiogram interpretation, yet typical atrial flutter (AFl) may present without sawtooth F-waves or RR regularity, and atrial fibrillation (AF) may be difficult to separate from atypical AFl or rapid focal atrial tachycardia (AT). We analyzed whether improved diagnostic accuracy using a validated analysis tool significantly impacts costs and patient care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective, blinded, multicenter study using a novel quantitative computerized algorithm to identify atrial tachyarrhythmia mechanism from the surface ECG in patients referred for electrophysiology study (EPS). In 122 consecutive patients (age 60 ± 12 years) referred for EPS, 91 sustained atrial tachyarrhythmias were studied. ECGs were also interpreted by 9 physicians from 3 specialties for comparison and to allow healthcare system modeling. Diagnostic accuracy was compared to the diagnosis at EPS. A Markov model was used to estimate the impact of improved arrhythmia diagnosis. We found 13% of typical AFl ECGs had neither sawtooth flutter waves nor RR regularity, and were misdiagnosed by the majority of clinicians (0/6 correctly diagnosed by consensus visual interpretation) but correctly by quantitative analysis in 83% (5/6, P = 0.03). AF diagnosis was also improved through use of the algorithm (92%) versus visual interpretation (primary care: 76%, P < 0.01). Economically, we found that these improvements in diagnostic accuracy resulted in an average cost-savings of $1,303 and 0.007 quality-adjusted-life-years per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Typical AFl and AF are frequently misdiagnosed using visual criteria. Quantitative analysis improves diagnostic accuracy and results in improved healthcare costs and patient outcomes.
UNLABELLED: Quantitative ECG Analysis. INTRODUCTION: Optimal atrial tachyarrhythmia management is facilitated by accurate electrocardiogram interpretation, yet typical atrial flutter (AFl) may present without sawtooth F-waves or RR regularity, and atrial fibrillation (AF) may be difficult to separate from atypical AFl or rapid focal atrial tachycardia (AT). We analyzed whether improved diagnostic accuracy using a validated analysis tool significantly impacts costs and patient care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective, blinded, multicenter study using a novel quantitative computerized algorithm to identify atrial tachyarrhythmia mechanism from the surface ECG in patients referred for electrophysiology study (EPS). In 122 consecutive patients (age 60 ± 12 years) referred for EPS, 91 sustained atrial tachyarrhythmias were studied. ECGs were also interpreted by 9 physicians from 3 specialties for comparison and to allow healthcare system modeling. Diagnostic accuracy was compared to the diagnosis at EPS. A Markov model was used to estimate the impact of improved arrhythmia diagnosis. We found 13% of typical AFl ECGs had neither sawtooth flutter waves nor RR regularity, and were misdiagnosed by the majority of clinicians (0/6 correctly diagnosed by consensus visual interpretation) but correctly by quantitative analysis in 83% (5/6, P = 0.03). AF diagnosis was also improved through use of the algorithm (92%) versus visual interpretation (primary care: 76%, P < 0.01). Economically, we found that these improvements in diagnostic accuracy resulted in an average cost-savings of $1,303 and 0.007 quality-adjusted-life-years per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Typical AFl and AF are frequently misdiagnosed using visual criteria. Quantitative analysis improves diagnostic accuracy and results in improved healthcare costs and patient outcomes.
Authors: Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Melvin M Scheinman; Etienne M Aliot; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; A John Camm; W Barton Campbell; David E Haines; Karl H Kuck; Bruce B Lerman; D Douglas Miller; Charlie Willard Shaeffer; William G Stevenson; Gordon F Tomaselli; Elliott M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K Jacobs; Richard O Russell; Silvia G Priori; Jean Jacques Blanc; Andzrej Budaj; Enrique Fernandez Burgos; Martin Cowie; Jaap Willem Deckers; Maria Angeles Alonso Garcia; Werner W Klein; John Lekakis; Bertil Lindahl; Gianfranco Mazzotta; João Carlos Araujo Morais; Ali Oto; Otto Smiseth; Hans Joachim Trappe Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Frank Bogun; Daejoon Anh; Gautham Kalahasty; Erik Wissner; Chadi Bou Serhal; Rabih Bazzi; W Douglas Weaver; Claudio Schuger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Andres Bochoeyer; Yanfei Yang; Jie Cheng; Randall J Lee; Edmund C Keung; Nassir F Marrouche; Andrea Natale; Melvin M Scheinman Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sean C Halligan; Bernard J Gersh; Robert D Brown; A Gabriela Rosales; Thomas M Munger; Win-Kuang Shen; Stephen C Hammill; Paul A Friedman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Tina Baykaner; Rishi Trikha; Junaid A B Zaman; David E Krummen; Paul J Wang; Sanjiv M Narayan Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2017-01-15 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Sebastian Sager; Felix Bernhardt; Florian Kehrle; Maximilian Merkert; Andreas Potschka; Benjamin Meder; Hugo Katus; Eberhard Scholz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240