Discriminating electrocardiographic responses to His-bundle pacing using machine learning.
Artificial intelligence
Conduction system pacing
Electrocardiography
His-bundle pacing
Machine learning
Neural networks
Pacemakers
Journal
Cardiovascular digital health journal
ISSN: 2666-6936
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Digit Health J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101771268
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
21
9
2020
pubmed:
22
9
2020
medline:
22
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
His-bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative to conventional ventricular pacing because of its ability to deliver physiological ventricular activation. Pacing at the His bundle produces different electrocardiographic (ECG) responses: selective His-bundle pacing (S-HBP), non-selective His bundle pacing (NS-HBP), and myocardium-only capture (MOC). These 3 capture types must be distinguished from each other, which can be challenging and time-consuming even for experts. The purpose of this study was to use artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of supervised machine learning using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automate HBP ECG interpretation. We identified patients who had undergone HBP and extracted raw 12-lead ECG data during S-HBP, NS-HBP, and MOC. A CNN was trained, using 3-fold cross-validation, on 75% of the segmented QRS complexes labeled with their capture type. The remaining 25% was kept aside as a testing dataset. The CNN was trained with 1297 QRS complexes from 59 patients. Cohen kappa for the neural network's performance on the 17-patient testing set was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.88; We demonstrated proof of concept that a neural network can be trained to automate discrimination between HBP ECG responses. When a larger dataset is trained to higher accuracy, automated AI ECG analysis could facilitate HBP implantation and follow-up and prevent complications resulting from incorrect HBP ECG analysis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
His-bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative to conventional ventricular pacing because of its ability to deliver physiological ventricular activation. Pacing at the His bundle produces different electrocardiographic (ECG) responses: selective His-bundle pacing (S-HBP), non-selective His bundle pacing (NS-HBP), and myocardium-only capture (MOC). These 3 capture types must be distinguished from each other, which can be challenging and time-consuming even for experts.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to use artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of supervised machine learning using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automate HBP ECG interpretation.
METHODS
METHODS
We identified patients who had undergone HBP and extracted raw 12-lead ECG data during S-HBP, NS-HBP, and MOC. A CNN was trained, using 3-fold cross-validation, on 75% of the segmented QRS complexes labeled with their capture type. The remaining 25% was kept aside as a testing dataset.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The CNN was trained with 1297 QRS complexes from 59 patients. Cohen kappa for the neural network's performance on the 17-patient testing set was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.88;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrated proof of concept that a neural network can be trained to automate discrimination between HBP ECG responses. When a larger dataset is trained to higher accuracy, automated AI ECG analysis could facilitate HBP implantation and follow-up and prevent complications resulting from incorrect HBP ECG analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32954375
doi: 10.1016/j.cvdhj.2020.07.001
pii: S2666-6936(20)30005-0
pmc: PMC7484933
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
11-20Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : FS/15/25/31423
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : RG/16/3/32175
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 18;72(24):3112-3122
pubmed: 30545450
Neural Netw. 2008 Mar-Apr;21(2-3):427-36
pubmed: 18272329
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019 Oct 1;5(4):321-333
pubmed: 30715300
Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):65-69
pubmed: 30617320
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;12(2):e007052
pubmed: 30707037
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;5(7):766-774
pubmed: 31320004
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Oct 28;12(20):2093-2101
pubmed: 31563678
ESC Heart Fail. 2018 Oct;5(5):965-976
pubmed: 29984912
Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2020 Jul-Aug;1(1):11-20
pubmed: 32954375
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Oct;30(10):1984-1993
pubmed: 31310403
Lancet. 2019 Sep 7;394(10201):861-867
pubmed: 31378392
Europace. 2018 Jun 1;20(6):1010-1017
pubmed: 28575215
Surg Radiol Anat. 2005 Aug;27(3):206-13
pubmed: 15723154
Heart Rhythm. 2018 Mar;15(3):460-468
pubmed: 29107697
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 13;10(1):170
pubmed: 31932608
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Feb;12(2):305-12
pubmed: 25446158
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Feb;12(2):e006816
pubmed: 30722682
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Dec;16(12):1817-1824
pubmed: 31377421
Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2018 Jun;7(2):103-110
pubmed: 29967682
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 22;71(20):2319-2330
pubmed: 29535066
Physiol Meas. 2012 Oct;33(10):1675-89
pubmed: 22986469
Comput Biol Med. 2018 Sep 1;100:270-278
pubmed: 28974302
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 May;5(5):576-586
pubmed: 31122379
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Sep;11(9):e006613
pubmed: 30354292
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 8;8(2):e019048
pubmed: 29439074
IEEE Trans Neural Netw. 1997;8(5):1156-64
pubmed: 18255717
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;31(1):286-292
pubmed: 31724791
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 21;72(8):927-947
pubmed: 30115232
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Oct;16(10):1554-1561
pubmed: 30930330
J Physiol. 1963 Mar;165:559-68
pubmed: 13955384
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Apr;17(4):607-614
pubmed: 31805370