应用人工智能评估动态心电图记录中房颤负荷

IF 2.6 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiovascular digital health journal Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cvdhj.2023.01.003
Elisa Hennings MD , Michael Coslovsky PhD , Rebecca E. Paladini PhD , Stefanie Aeschbacher PhD , Sven Knecht PhD , Vincent Schlageter PhD , Philipp Krisai MD , Patrick Badertscher MD , Christian Sticherling MD , Stefan Osswald MD , Michael Kühne MD , Christine S. Zuern MD , Swiss-AF Investigators
{"title":"应用人工智能评估动态心电图记录中房颤负荷","authors":"Elisa Hennings MD ,&nbsp;Michael Coslovsky PhD ,&nbsp;Rebecca E. Paladini PhD ,&nbsp;Stefanie Aeschbacher PhD ,&nbsp;Sven Knecht PhD ,&nbsp;Vincent Schlageter PhD ,&nbsp;Philipp Krisai MD ,&nbsp;Patrick Badertscher MD ,&nbsp;Christian Sticherling MD ,&nbsp;Stefan Osswald MD ,&nbsp;Michael Kühne MD ,&nbsp;Christine S. Zuern MD ,&nbsp;Swiss-AF Investigators","doi":"10.1016/j.cvdhj.2023.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Emerging evidence indicates that a high atrial fibrillation (AF) burden is associated with adverse outcome. However, AF burden is not routinely measured in clinical practice. An artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool could facilitate the assessment of AF burden.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to compare the assessment of AF burden performed manually by physicians with that measured by an AI-based tool.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We analyzed 7-day Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings of AF patients included in the prospective, multicenter Swiss-AF Burden cohort study. AF burden was defined as percentage of time in AF, and was assessed manually by physicians and by an AI-based tool (Cardiomatics, Cracow, Poland). We evaluated the agreement between both techniques by means of Pearson correlation coefficient, linear regression model, and Bland-Altman plot.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We assessed the AF burden in 100 Holter ECG recordings of 82 patients. We identified 53 Holter ECGs with 0% or 100% AF burden, where we found a 100% correlation. For the remaining 47 Holter ECGs with an AF burden between 0.01% and 81.53%, Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.998. The calibration intercept was -0.001 (95% CI -0.008; 0.006), and the calibration slope was 0.975 (95% CI 0.954; 0.995; multiple R<sup>2</sup> 0.995, residual standard error 0.017). Bland-Altman analysis resulted in a bias of -0.006 (95% limits of agreement -0.042 to 0.030).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The assessment of AF burden with an AI-based tool provided very similar results compared to manual assessment. An AI-based tool may therefore be an accurate and efficient option for the assessment of AF burden.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72527,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular digital health journal","volume":"4 2","pages":"Pages 41-47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123500/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the atrial fibrillation burden in Holter electrocardiogram recordings using artificial intelligence\",\"authors\":\"Elisa Hennings MD ,&nbsp;Michael Coslovsky PhD ,&nbsp;Rebecca E. Paladini PhD ,&nbsp;Stefanie Aeschbacher PhD ,&nbsp;Sven Knecht PhD ,&nbsp;Vincent Schlageter PhD ,&nbsp;Philipp Krisai MD ,&nbsp;Patrick Badertscher MD ,&nbsp;Christian Sticherling MD ,&nbsp;Stefan Osswald MD ,&nbsp;Michael Kühne MD ,&nbsp;Christine S. Zuern MD ,&nbsp;Swiss-AF Investigators\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cvdhj.2023.01.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Emerging evidence indicates that a high atrial fibrillation (AF) burden is associated with adverse outcome. However, AF burden is not routinely measured in clinical practice. An artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool could facilitate the assessment of AF burden.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to compare the assessment of AF burden performed manually by physicians with that measured by an AI-based tool.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We analyzed 7-day Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings of AF patients included in the prospective, multicenter Swiss-AF Burden cohort study. AF burden was defined as percentage of time in AF, and was assessed manually by physicians and by an AI-based tool (Cardiomatics, Cracow, Poland). We evaluated the agreement between both techniques by means of Pearson correlation coefficient, linear regression model, and Bland-Altman plot.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We assessed the AF burden in 100 Holter ECG recordings of 82 patients. We identified 53 Holter ECGs with 0% or 100% AF burden, where we found a 100% correlation. For the remaining 47 Holter ECGs with an AF burden between 0.01% and 81.53%, Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.998. The calibration intercept was -0.001 (95% CI -0.008; 0.006), and the calibration slope was 0.975 (95% CI 0.954; 0.995; multiple R<sup>2</sup> 0.995, residual standard error 0.017). Bland-Altman analysis resulted in a bias of -0.006 (95% limits of agreement -0.042 to 0.030).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The assessment of AF burden with an AI-based tool provided very similar results compared to manual assessment. An AI-based tool may therefore be an accurate and efficient option for the assessment of AF burden.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular digital health journal\",\"volume\":\"4 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 41-47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123500/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular digital health journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266669362300004X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular digital health journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266669362300004X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景新出现的证据表明,高心房颤动(AF)负荷与不良结果有关。然而,在临床实践中,AF负担并不是常规测量的。基于人工智能的工具可以促进房颤负担的评估。目的我们旨在比较医生手动进行的AF负担评估与基于人工智能的工具测量的AF负担。方法我们分析了纳入前瞻性、多中心瑞士房颤负担队列研究的房颤患者的7天动态心电图(ECG)记录。AF负担被定义为AF时间的百分比,由医生和基于人工智能的工具(Cardiomatics,Cracow,Poland)手动评估。我们通过Pearson相关系数、线性回归模型和Bland-Altman图评估了这两种技术之间的一致性。结果我们在82例患者的100次动态心电图记录中评估了房颤负荷。我们确定了53个房颤负荷为0%或100%的动态心电图,其中我们发现了100%的相关性。对于AF负荷在0.01%和81.53%之间的其余47个动态心电图,Pearson相关系数为0.998。校准截距为-0.001(95%CI-0.008;0.006),校准斜率为0.975(95%CI 0.954;0.995;倍数R2 0.995,残差标准误差0.017)。Bland-Altman分析得出的偏差为-0.006(95%的一致性极限为-0.042-0.030)。结论与手动评估相比,使用基于人工智能的工具评估房颤负担提供了非常相似的结果。因此,基于人工智能的工具可能是评估AF负担的准确有效的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment of the atrial fibrillation burden in Holter electrocardiogram recordings using artificial intelligence

Background

Emerging evidence indicates that a high atrial fibrillation (AF) burden is associated with adverse outcome. However, AF burden is not routinely measured in clinical practice. An artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool could facilitate the assessment of AF burden.

Objective

We aimed to compare the assessment of AF burden performed manually by physicians with that measured by an AI-based tool.

Methods

We analyzed 7-day Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings of AF patients included in the prospective, multicenter Swiss-AF Burden cohort study. AF burden was defined as percentage of time in AF, and was assessed manually by physicians and by an AI-based tool (Cardiomatics, Cracow, Poland). We evaluated the agreement between both techniques by means of Pearson correlation coefficient, linear regression model, and Bland-Altman plot.

Results

We assessed the AF burden in 100 Holter ECG recordings of 82 patients. We identified 53 Holter ECGs with 0% or 100% AF burden, where we found a 100% correlation. For the remaining 47 Holter ECGs with an AF burden between 0.01% and 81.53%, Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.998. The calibration intercept was -0.001 (95% CI -0.008; 0.006), and the calibration slope was 0.975 (95% CI 0.954; 0.995; multiple R2 0.995, residual standard error 0.017). Bland-Altman analysis resulted in a bias of -0.006 (95% limits of agreement -0.042 to 0.030).

Conclusion

The assessment of AF burden with an AI-based tool provided very similar results compared to manual assessment. An AI-based tool may therefore be an accurate and efficient option for the assessment of AF burden.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular digital health journal
Cardiovascular digital health journal Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
58 days
期刊最新文献
Determinants of global cardiac implantable electrical device remote monitoring utilization – Results from an international survey Cellular-Enabled Remote Patient Monitoring for Pregnancies Complicated by Hypertension Point-of-care testing preferences 2020–2022: Trends over the years Feasibility of remote monitoring for fatal coronary heart disease using Apple Watch ECGs Artificial intelligence–based screening for cardiomyopathy in an obstetric population: A pilot study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1