Abstract 4141993: Artificial Intelligence ECG Analysis More Accurately Identifies Epicardial versus Endocardial Ventricular Tachycardia and Pacing Compared with Visual Criteria

Background: Accurate prediction of whether a ventricular tachycardia (VT) source or critical isthmus is epicardial may facilitate efficient and effective catheter ablation. Prior visual criteria have been described but performance may vary depending upon region. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm would provide more accurate identification of epicardial versus endocardial sources distributed throughout the left ventricle (LV) compared with visual analysis. Aims: We endeavored to assess the performance of a novel AI algorithm in separating epicardial and endocardial VT and pacing sources compared with 7 previously published ECG criteria. Methods: Patients with LV VT or pacing were enrolled. Episodes were grouped as either LV-endocardial or non-LV-endocardial (i.e., epicardial) according to site of successful ablation or location of the pacing electrode. 12-lead ECG data was analyzed using the AI algorithm to predict source location and accuracy was computed. For comparison, accuracy of 7 previously described visual ECG criteria was assessed. Results: A total of 136 arrhythmia or pacing episodes from 72 patients (mean age 66±14 y, 32% female, EF 39±16%) were analyzed, evenly distributed between epicardial (n=68, 50%) and endocardial (n=68) sources. Episodes were localized to all 17 AHA LV segments. Algorithm accuracy was 91.1% (124 of 136 episodes), exceeded the best performing visual ECG criteria (shortest precordial rS >121 msec; 62.5%; 85 of 136 episodes; P<0.001). Algorithm sensitivity was 0.971 [95% CI: 0.898 - 0.996] and specificity was 0.853 [95% CI: 0.746 - 0.927]. Figure A shows an example ECG from a 73-year-old patient undergoing epicardial pacing at the inferior left ventricular apex. Figures B, C, and D show orthogonal views of the local normal vector (blue) and the electrical activation vector (red), consistent with an epicardial origin. Conclusions: The AI algorithm provided improved accuracy versus visual ECG criteria. Future studies are required to assess whether such information improves procedural efficiency.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4141993
Primary Topic
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4141993: Artificial Intelligence ECG Analysis More Accurately Identifies Epicardial versus Endocardial Ventricular Tachycardia and Pacing Compared with Visual Criteria

Sutton Fox, David E. Krummen, Gordon Ho, Farshad Raissi et al.
Circulation
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
article

Abstract 4141993: Artificial Intelligence ECG Analysis More Accurately Identifies Epicardial versus Endocardial Ventricular Tachycardia and Pacing Compared with Visual Criteria

Sutton Fox, David E. Krummen, Gordon Ho, Farshad Raissi, Gregory K. Feld, Andrew D. McCulloch, Omar M. Aldaas, Christopher Villongco, Erin Dreessens, Frederick T. Han, Kurt S. Hoffmayer, Jonathan Chong Hsu, Kevin Sung, Kendall Oliver
article en

Abstract

Background: Accurate prediction of whether a ventricular tachycardia (VT) source or critical isthmus is epicardial may facilitate efficient and effective catheter ablation. Prior visual criteria have been described but performance may vary depending upon region. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm would provide more accurate identification of epicardial versus endocardial sources distributed throughout the left ventricle (LV) compared with visual analysis. Aims: We endeavored to assess the performance of a novel AI algorithm in separating epicardial and endocardial VT and pacing sources compared with 7 previously published ECG criteria. Methods: Patients with LV VT or pacing were enrolled. Episodes were grouped as either LV-endocardial or non-LV-endocardial (i.e., epicardial) according to site of successful ablation or location of the pacing electrode. 12-lead ECG data was analyzed using the AI algorithm to predict source location and accuracy was computed. For comparison, accuracy of 7 previously described visual ECG criteria was assessed. Results: A total of 136 arrhythmia or pacing episodes from 72 patients (mean age 66±14 y, 32% female, EF 39±16%) were analyzed, evenly distributed between epicardial (n=68, 50%) and endocardial (n=68) sources. Episodes were localized to all 17 AHA LV segments. Algorithm accuracy was 91.1% (124 of 136 episodes), exceeded the best performing visual ECG criteria (shortest precordial rS >121 msec; 62.5%; 85 of 136 episodes; P<0.001). Algorithm sensitivity was 0.971 [95% CI: 0.898 - 0.996] and specificity was 0.853 [95% CI: 0.746 - 0.927]. Figure A shows an example ECG from a 73-year-old patient undergoing epicardial pacing at the inferior left ventricular apex. Figures B, C, and D show orthogonal views of the local normal vector (blue) and the electrical activation vector (red), consistent with an epicardial origin. Conclusions: The AI algorithm provided improved accuracy versus visual ECG criteria. Future studies are required to assess whether such information improves procedural efficiency.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
University of California San Diego (US), University of California San Diego Medical Center (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.