Abstract 13915: Man vs. Machine: A Direct Comparison of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Novel Automated WCT Differentiation to Traditional Manual ECG Interpretation Approaches

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Differentiation of wide QRS complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide QRS tachycardia (SWCT) through 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is one of the most critical yet challenging tasks in clinical practice. Recent research highlights novel automated methods that successfully diagnose WCTs. We sought to directly compare the diagnostic efficacy of these novel automated WCT differentiation methods (i.e., WCT Formula, VT Prediction Model, and WCT Formula II) to traditional ECG interpretation approaches (i.e., Brugada and Vereckei aVR algorithms). METHODS: A collection of paired WCT and baselined ECGs were retrospectively analyzed. Next, an electrophysiologist blindly and prospectively applied the Brugada and Vereckei aVR algorithms. Separately, computerized measurements were used to apply the three automated WCT differentiation methods. The diagnostic performance of each method was then evaluated. RESULTS: 213 WCTs (111 VT and 102 SWCT) from 105 patients were analyzed. The WCT Formula demonstrated superior overall accuracy (84.7% vs. 64.8%), specificity (86.2% vs. 35.3%), positive predictive value (PPV) (85.7% vs. 60.7%), and positive (+) likelihood ratio (LR) (6.06 vs. 1.42) compared to Vereckei aVR algorithm. Similarly, the WCT Formula attained higher specificity (86.2% vs. 61.8%), PPV (85.7% vs. 71.9%), and (+) LR (6.06 vs. 2.36) than the Brugada algorithm. The WCT Formula II demonstrated superior overall accuracy (89.2% vs. 64.8%), specificity (84.3 % vs. 35.3%), PPV (86.7% vs. 60.7%), and positive (+) LR (5.97 vs.1.42) compared to Vereckei aVR algorithm as well as higher specificity (84.3 % vs. 61.8 %), PPV (86.7% vs. 71.9%), and (+) LR (5.97 vs. 2.36) than the Brugada algorithm. The VT prediction model yielded superior specificity (79.4% vs. 35.3%), PPV (79.8 vs. 60.7%) and (+) LR (3.63 vs.1.42) compared to the Vereckei aVR algorithm but did not demonstrate superior diagnostic performance to the Brugada algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Novel automated WCT differentiation methods achieved similar or superior diagnostic performance metrics compared to traditional ECG interpretation approaches.