Julian D Fortune1, Natalie E Coppa1, Kazi T Haq2, Hetal Patel3, Larisa G Tereshchenko4. 1. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States. 2. Oregon Health and Science University, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Portland, OR, United States. 3. Oregon Health and Science University, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Portland, OR, United States; Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University, IL, United States. 4. Oregon Health and Science University, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Portland, OR, United States; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, Larisa Tereshchenko, 9500 Euclid Ave, JJN3-01. , Cleveland, OH 44195, United States. Electronic address: tereshl@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate an open-source code ECG-digitizing tool and assess agreements of ECG measurements across three types of median beats, comprised of digitally recorded simultaneous and asynchronous ECG leads and digitized asynchronous ECG leads. METHODS: We used the data of clinical studies participants (n = 230; mean age 30±15 y; 25% female; 52% had the cardiovascular disease) with available both digitally recorded and printed on paper and then scanned ECGs, split into development (n = 150) and validation (n = 80) datasets. The agreement between ECG and VCG measurements on the digitally recorded time-coherent median beat, representative asynchronous digitized, and digitally recorded beats was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The sample-per-sample comparison of digitally recorded and digitized signals showed a very high correlation (0.977), a small mean difference (9.3 µV), and root mean squared error (25.9 µV). Agreement between digitally recorded and digitized representative beat was high [area spatial ventricular gradient (SVG) elevation bias 2.5(95% limits of agreement [LOA] -7.9-13.0)°; precision 96.8%; inter-class correlation [ICC] 0.988; Lin's concordance coefficient ρc 0.97(95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.98)]. Agreement between digitally recorded asynchronous and time-coherent median beats was moderate for area-based VCG metrics (spatial QRS-T angle bias 1.4(95%LOA -33.2-30.3)°; precision 94.8%; ICC 0.95; Lin's concordance coefficient ρc 0.90(95%CI 0.82-0.95)]. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated an open-source software tool for paper-ECG digitization. Asynchronous ECG leads are the primary source of disagreement in measurements on digitally recorded and digitized ECGs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate an open-source code ECG-digitizing tool and assess agreements of ECG measurements across three types of median beats, comprised of digitally recorded simultaneous and asynchronous ECG leads and digitized asynchronous ECG leads. METHODS: We used the data of clinical studies participants (n = 230; mean age 30±15 y; 25% female; 52% had the cardiovascular disease) with available both digitally recorded and printed on paper and then scanned ECGs, split into development (n = 150) and validation (n = 80) datasets. The agreement between ECG and VCG measurements on the digitally recorded time-coherent median beat, representative asynchronous digitized, and digitally recorded beats was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The sample-per-sample comparison of digitally recorded and digitized signals showed a very high correlation (0.977), a small mean difference (9.3 µV), and root mean squared error (25.9 µV). Agreement between digitally recorded and digitized representative beat was high [area spatial ventricular gradient (SVG) elevation bias 2.5(95% limits of agreement [LOA] -7.9-13.0)°; precision 96.8%; inter-class correlation [ICC] 0.988; Lin's concordance coefficient ρc 0.97(95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.98)]. Agreement between digitally recorded asynchronous and time-coherent median beats was moderate for area-based VCG metrics (spatial QRS-T angle bias 1.4(95%LOA -33.2-30.3)°; precision 94.8%; ICC 0.95; Lin's concordance coefficient ρc 0.90(95%CI 0.82-0.95)]. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated an open-source software tool for paper-ECG digitization. Asynchronous ECG leads are the primary source of disagreement in measurements on digitally recorded and digitized ECGs.
Authors: Larisa G Tereshchenko; Alan Cheng; Jason Park; Nicholas Wold; Timothy E Meyer; Michael R Gold; Suneet Mittal; Jagmeet Singh; Kenneth M Stein; Kenneth A Ellenbogen Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jason A Thomas; Erick A Perez-Alday; Allison Junell; Kelley Newton; Christopher Hamilton; Yin Li-Pershing; David German; Aron Bender; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Mohammed Baydoun; Lise Safatly; Ossama K Abou Hassan; Hassan Ghaziri; Ali El Hajj; Hussain Isma'eel Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Rob Brisk; Raymond Bond; Elizabeth Banks; Alicja Piadlo; Dewar Finlay; James McLaughlin; David McEneaney Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Jason A Thomas; Erick Andres Perez-Alday; Christopher Hamilton; Muammar M Kabir; Eugene A Park; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Philip de Chazal; Conor Heneghan; Elaine Sheridan; Richard Reilly; Philip Nolan; Mark O'Malley Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Lakshminarayan Ravichandran; Chris Harless; Amit J Shah; Carson A Wick; James H Mcclellan; Srini Tridandapani Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2013 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: James D Pollard; Kazi T Haq; Katherine J Lutz; Nichole M Rogovoy; Kevin A Paternostro; Elsayed Z Soliman; Joseph Maher; Joo A C Lima; Solomon K Musani; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Eur Heart J Digit Health Date: 2021-01-20