BACKGROUND: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) is characterized by delay in depolarization of the right ventricle, detected by prolonged terminal activation duration (TAD) in V1-V3. However, manual ECG measurements have shown moderate-to-low intra- and inter-reader agreement. The goal of this study was to assess reproducibility of automated ECG measurements in the right precordial leads. METHODS: Pairs of ECGs recorded in the same day from Johns Hopkins ARVD/C Registry participants [n=247, mean age 35.2±15.6 y, 58% men, 92% whites, 11(4.5%) with definite ARVD/C] were retrospectively analyzed. QRS duration, intrinsicoid deflection, TAD, and T-wave amplitude in the right precordial leads, as well as averaged across all leads QRS duration, QRS axis, T axis, QTc interval, and heart rate was measured automatically, using 12SL TM algorithm (GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI, USA). Intrinsicoid deflection was measured as the time from QRS complex onset to the alignment point of the QRS complex. TAD was calculated as the difference between QRS duration and intrinsicoid in V1, V2, V3. Reproducibility was quantified by Bland-Altman analysis (bias with 95% limits of agreement), Lin's concordance coefficient, and Bradley-Blackwood procedure. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis revealed satisfactory reproducibility of tested parameters. V1 QRS duration bias was -0.10ms [95% limits of agreement -12.77 to 12.56ms], V2 QRS duration bias -0.09ms [-11.13 to 10.96ms]; V1 TAD bias 0.14ms [-13.23 to 13.51ms], V2 TAD bias 0.008ms [-12.42 to 12.44ms]. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive statistical evaluation of reproducibility of automated ECG measurements is important for appropriate interpretation of ECG. Automated ECG measurements are reproducible to within 25%.
BACKGROUND:Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) is characterized by delay in depolarization of the right ventricle, detected by prolonged terminal activation duration (TAD) in V1-V3. However, manual ECG measurements have shown moderate-to-low intra- and inter-reader agreement. The goal of this study was to assess reproducibility of automated ECG measurements in the right precordial leads. METHODS: Pairs of ECGs recorded in the same day from Johns Hopkins ARVD/C Registry participants [n=247, mean age 35.2±15.6 y, 58% men, 92% whites, 11(4.5%) with definite ARVD/C] were retrospectively analyzed. QRS duration, intrinsicoid deflection, TAD, and T-wave amplitude in the right precordial leads, as well as averaged across all leads QRS duration, QRS axis, T axis, QTc interval, and heart rate was measured automatically, using 12SL TM algorithm (GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI, USA). Intrinsicoid deflection was measured as the time from QRS complex onset to the alignment point of the QRS complex. TAD was calculated as the difference between QRS duration and intrinsicoid in V1, V2, V3. Reproducibility was quantified by Bland-Altman analysis (bias with 95% limits of agreement), Lin's concordance coefficient, and Bradley-Blackwood procedure. RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis revealed satisfactory reproducibility of tested parameters. V1 QRS duration bias was -0.10ms [95% limits of agreement -12.77 to 12.56ms], V2 QRS duration bias -0.09ms [-11.13 to 10.96ms]; V1 TAD bias 0.14ms [-13.23 to 13.51ms], V2 TAD bias 0.008ms [-12.42 to 12.44ms]. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive statistical evaluation of reproducibility of automated ECG measurements is important for appropriate interpretation of ECG. Automated ECG measurements are reproducible to within 25%.
Authors: Maxime De Guillebon; Jean-Benoit Thambo; Sylvain Ploux; Antoine Deplagne; Frederic Sacher; Pierre Jais; Michel Haissaguerre; Philippe Ritter; Jacques Clementy; Pierre Bordachar Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-03-04
Authors: Paul Kligfield; Leonard S Gettes; James J Bailey; Rory Childers; Barbara J Deal; E William Hancock; Gerard van Herpen; Jan A Kors; Peter Macfarlane; David M Mirvis; Olle Pahlm; Pentti Rautaharju; Galen S Wagner; Mark Josephson; Jay W Mason; Peter Okin; Borys Surawicz; Hein Wellens Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Harikrishna Tandri; Angeliki Asimaki; Theodore Abraham; Darshan Dalal; Laurens Tops; Rahul Jain; Jeffrey E Saffitz; Daniel P Judge; Stuart D Russell; Marc Halushka; David A Bluemke; David A Kass; Hugh Calkins Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Casper Lund-Andersen; Helen H Petersen; Christian Jøns; Berit T Philbert; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Lene T Skovgaard; Jesper H Svendsen Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Kazi T Haq; Katherine J Lutz; Kyle K Peters; Natalie E Craig; Evan Mitchell; Anish K Desai; Nathan W L Stencel; Elsayed Z Soliman; João A C Lima; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Julian D Fortune; Natalie E Coppa; Kazi T Haq; Hetal Patel; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Erick A Perez-Alday; Christopher Hamilton; Annabel Li-Pershing; Jose M Monroy-Trujillo; Michelle Estrella; Stephen M Sozio; Bernard Jaar; Rulan Parekh; Larisa Tereshchenko Journal: Comput Cardiol (2010) Date: 2019-06-24