Assessment of the atrial fibrillation burden in Holter electrocardiogram recordings using artificial intelligence

IF 2.6 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
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":"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

应用人工智能评估动态心电图记录中房颤负荷
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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
×
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