Safety and accuracy of the computer interpretation of normal ECGs at triage.

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00790-5
Valérie Langlois-Carbonneau, François Dufresne, Ève Labbé, Katia Hamelin, Djamal Berbiche, Sophie Gosselin
{"title":"Safety and accuracy of the computer interpretation of normal ECGs at triage.","authors":"Valérie Langlois-Carbonneau, François Dufresne, Ève Labbé, Katia Hamelin, Djamal Berbiche, Sophie Gosselin","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00790-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>ECGs performed at ED triage are mandatorily assessed by an emergency physician contributing to task interruptions, decreased quality of care and increased error risk. Recent literature suggests that a triage ECG interpreted as normal by the ECG machine software correlates with benign interpretation from attending cardiologists. Ambiguity persists regarding the safety of the normal computerized ECG interpretation and whether real-time physician review is needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated the GE Marquette 12SL ECG software's clinical accuracy for normal triage ECGs. We compared machine interpretation, ED physicians' real-time interpretation and management as well as cardiologists systematic but delayed review of the ECGs to establish diagnostic accuracy and safety of a normal software interpretation. Additional data were collected from the emergency department patient tracking system and charts to determine patient outcomes when machine normal interpretation differed from ED physicians and cardiologists' analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between November 16th 2020 and November 19th 2021, we collected 1220 machine-normal ECGs performed at Charles-Le Moyne Hospital ED triage. 1051 ECGs were eligible for inclusion. ED physicians agreed with the machine for 1028 normal diagnoses (97.8% IC (0.95): 96.7-98.5) and cardiologists agreed with the machine for 1037 ECGs (98.7% IC (0.95) 97.8-99.2). Relevant changes in ED management were recorded in three patients (0.29% IC (0.95): 0.1-0.8) whose ECGs were read as normal by the software: two emergent referrals to the catheterization lab and one emergent transfer to the resuscitation bay with next day coronarography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A normal ECG interpretation from the GE Marquette 12SL ECG software at ED triage has a very high accuracy and a very low probability of clinically relevant change in patient outcome and ED trajectory.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00790-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: ECGs performed at ED triage are mandatorily assessed by an emergency physician contributing to task interruptions, decreased quality of care and increased error risk. Recent literature suggests that a triage ECG interpreted as normal by the ECG machine software correlates with benign interpretation from attending cardiologists. Ambiguity persists regarding the safety of the normal computerized ECG interpretation and whether real-time physician review is needed.

Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated the GE Marquette 12SL ECG software's clinical accuracy for normal triage ECGs. We compared machine interpretation, ED physicians' real-time interpretation and management as well as cardiologists systematic but delayed review of the ECGs to establish diagnostic accuracy and safety of a normal software interpretation. Additional data were collected from the emergency department patient tracking system and charts to determine patient outcomes when machine normal interpretation differed from ED physicians and cardiologists' analysis.

Results: Between November 16th 2020 and November 19th 2021, we collected 1220 machine-normal ECGs performed at Charles-Le Moyne Hospital ED triage. 1051 ECGs were eligible for inclusion. ED physicians agreed with the machine for 1028 normal diagnoses (97.8% IC (0.95): 96.7-98.5) and cardiologists agreed with the machine for 1037 ECGs (98.7% IC (0.95) 97.8-99.2). Relevant changes in ED management were recorded in three patients (0.29% IC (0.95): 0.1-0.8) whose ECGs were read as normal by the software: two emergent referrals to the catheterization lab and one emergent transfer to the resuscitation bay with next day coronarography.

Conclusion: A normal ECG interpretation from the GE Marquette 12SL ECG software at ED triage has a very high accuracy and a very low probability of clinically relevant change in patient outcome and ED trajectory.

电脑判读分诊时正常心电图的安全性和准确性。
背景:急诊室分诊时所做的心电图必须由急诊医生进行评估,这会导致任务中断、护理质量下降和出错风险增加。最近的文献表明,由心电图机软件解释为正常的分诊心电图与心脏科主治医生的良性解释相关。关于计算机化正常心电图判读的安全性以及是否需要医生实时复查的问题仍不明确:在这项前瞻性队列研究中,我们评估了 GE Marquette 12SL 心电图软件对正常分诊心电图的临床准确性。我们比较了机器判读、急诊科医生的实时判读和管理以及心内科医生对心电图的系统但延迟的审查,以确定正常软件判读的诊断准确性和安全性。我们还从急诊科患者追踪系统和病历中收集了其他数据,以确定当机器的正常判读与急诊科医生和心脏病专家的分析不同时,患者的治疗效果:在 2020 年 11 月 16 日至 2021 年 11 月 19 日期间,我们收集了查尔斯-勒莫恩医院急诊科分诊室的 1220 份机器正常心电图。符合纳入条件的心电图有 1051 份。急诊室医生与机器一致同意 1028 项正常诊断(97.8% IC (0.95): 96.7-98.5),心脏病专家与机器一致同意 1037 项心电图(98.7% IC (0.95) 97.8-99.2)。有三名患者(0.29% IC (0.95):0.1-0.8)的心电图被软件判读为正常,因此急诊室的处理发生了相关变化:两名患者紧急转诊至导管室,一名患者紧急转入复苏室,第二天进行冠状动脉造影:结论:在急诊室分诊时,GE Marquette 12SL 心电图软件对正常心电图的解读具有极高的准确性,而对患者预后和急诊室轨迹造成临床相关改变的可能性极低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信