Electrocardiogram algorithms used to differentiate wide complex tachycardias demonstrate diagnostic limitations when applied by non-cardiologists.

Non-cardiologists (NCs) are often responsible for the preliminary diagnosis and early management of patients presenting with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT). At present, the Vereckei aVR and Brugada algorithms are the most widely recognized and frequently relied upon wide complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation criteria by NCs. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic efficacy of the Vereckei aVR and Brugada algorithms when applied by NCs. In a blinded fashion, three internal medicine residents prospectively interpreted WCTs using the Vereckei aVR and Brugada algorithms. The diagnostic performance of each method was evaluated according to their agreement with the correct rhythm diagnosis. Two-hundred sixty-nine WCTs (160 VT, 109 SWCT) from 186 patients were independently interpreted by each participant (807 separate interpretations per algorithm). The aVR and Brugada algorithms accurately classified 546 out of 807 (67.7%) and 622 out of 807 (77.1%) interpreted WCTs, respectively. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the aVR algorithm for VT was 92.1% and 31.8%, respectively. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the Brugada algorithm for VT was 89.4% and 59.0%, respectively. Both algorithms yielded modestly favorable overall positive predictive values (aVR 66.5%; Brugada 76.2%) and negative predictive values (73.3%; Brugada 79.1%). Non-cardiologist algorithm users correctly identified most "actual" VTs, but did not sufficiently revise VT probability to conclusively distinguish VT and SWCT. Newer WCT differentiation methods are needed to improve NC's ability to accurately differentiate WCTs.

May AM ，Brenes-Salazar JA ，DeSimone CV ，Vaidya VR ，Ternus BW ，Hodge DO ，Lin G ，Mulpuru SK ，Deshmukh AJ ，Noseworthy PA ，Brady PA ... -  《-》

Direct Comparison of Methods to Differentiate Wide Complex Tachycardias: Novel Automated Algorithms Versus Manual ECG Interpretation Approaches.

LoCoco S ，Kashou AH ，Deshmukh AJ ，Asirvatham SJ ，DeSimone CV ，Mikhova KM ，Sodhi SS ，Cuculich PS ，Ghadban R ，Cooper DH ，Maddox TM ，Noseworthy PA ，May AM ... -  《-》

[Value of aVR lead four steps algorithm on differential diagnosis of wide QRS complex tachycardia].

The aVR lead four steps is a new algorithm for differential diagnosis of wide QRS complex tachycardia (WCT). The study explores the clinical value of this new algorithm on differential diagnosis of WCT. Application of aVR lead four steps to analysis the electrocardiogram of patients with WCT proved by electrophysiological study. Every step's accuracy rate, sensitivity and specificity to differential diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia (VT) were calculated. The first step diagnosed VT according to presence of an initial R wave in the aVR lead. The second step diagnosed VT according to width of an initial r or q wave > 40 ms in the aVR lead. The third step diagnosed VT according to notching on the initial downstroke of a predominantly negative QRS complex in the aVR lead. The fourth step diagnosis VT according to ventricular activation-velocity ratio (Vi/Vt) in the aVR lead, Vi/Vt ≤ 1 suggested VT. Results derived from aVR lead four steps algorithm were compared with results derived from Brugada and Vereckei four steps algorithm. A total of 113 patients with WCT were analyzed (31 supraventricular tachycardia, SVT and 82 ventricular tachycardia, VT). The accuracy rate of differential diagnosis VT is 91.2%, sensitivity is 90.2% and specificity is 77.4%. The accuracy and sensitivity of the aVR lead four steps algorithm for differential diagnosis of WCT were superior to the Brugada Vereckei four steps algorithm (P < 0.05). The specificity of the Vereckei four steps algorithm was superior to aVR lead and Brugada four steps algorithm (P < 0.05), while the specificity of the aVR lead four steps algorithm was similar as Brugada four steps algorithm (P > 0.05). The aVR lead four steps algorithm is associated with excellent accuracy rate, sensitivity for differential diagnosis of WCT. This algorithm is simple and could be easily learned and applied by physician.

Lin T ，Ma YT ，Muhu Y ，Tang BP ，Hou YM ，Zhang YY ... -  《-》

The WCT Formula: A novel algorithm designed to automatically differentiate wide-complex tachycardias.

The accurate differentiation of wide complex tachycardias (WCTs) into ventricular tachycardia (VT) or supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) remains problematic despite numerous manually-operated electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation methods. We sought to create a new WCT differentiation method that could be automatically implemented by computerized ECG interpretation (CEI) software. In a two-part study, we developed and validated a logistic regression model (i.e. WCT Formula) that utilizes computerized measurements and computations derived from patients' paired WCT and subsequent baseline ECGs. In Part 1, a derivation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was examined to identify independent VT predictors to be incorporated into the WCT Formula. In Part 2, a separate validation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was used to prospectively evaluate the WCT Formula's diagnostic performance. The derivation cohort was comprised of 317 paired WCT (157 VT, 160 SWCT) and baseline ECGs. A logistic regression model (i.e. WCT Formula) incorporating WCT QRS duration (ms) (p < 0.001), frontal percent amplitude change (%) (p < 0.001), and horizontal percent amplitude change (%) (p < 0.001) yielded effective WCT differentiation (AUC of 0.96). The validation cohort consisted of 284 paired WCT (116 VT, 168 SWCT) and baseline ECGs. The WCT Formula achieved favorable accuracy (91.5%) with strong sensitivity (89.7%) and specificity (92.9%) for VT. The WCT Formula is an example of how contemporary CEI software could be used to successfully differentiate WCTs. The incorporation of similar automated methods into CEI software may improve clinicians' ability to accurately distinguish VT and SWCT.

May AM ，DeSimone CV ，Kashou AH ，Hodge DO ，Lin G ，Kapa S ，Asirvatham SJ ，Deshmukh AJ ，Noseworthy PA ，Brady PA ... -  《-》

Differential diagnosis of wide QRS tachycardias: comparison of two electrocardiographic algorithms.

This study's aim is to compare the ability of two ECG criteria to differentiate ventricular (VT) from supraventricular tachycardia (SVT): Brugada et al. [horizontal plane (HP) leads] and Vereckei et al. [frontal plane (FP), specifically aVR lead], having electrophysiological study (EPS) as gold standard. After comparing, suggestions for better diagnosis of wide QRS-complex tachycardia (WCT) in emergency situations were made. Fifty-one consecutive patients with 12-lead ECG registered during EPS-induced regular WCT were selected. Each ECG was split into two parts: HP (V1-V6) and FP (D1-D3, aVR, aVL, and aVF), randomly distributed to three observers, blinded for EPS diagnosis and complementary ECG plane, resulting in total 306 ECG analyses. Observers followed the four steps of both algorithms, counting time-to-diagnosis. Global sensitivity, specificity, percentage of incorrect diagnoses, and step-by-step positive/negative likelihood ratios (+LR and -LR) were calculated. Kaplan-Meier curve was plotted for final time-to-diagnosis. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with kappa-statistic. Global sensitivity was similarly high in FP and HP algorithms (89.2 vs. 90.1%), and incorrect classifications were 27.4 vs. 24.7%. Forty-eight correct analyses by Vereckei criteria took 9.13 s to diagnose VT in the first step, showing that first step was fast, with high +LR, generating nearly conclusive pre- (72.6%) to post-test (98.0%) changes for VT probability. Both algorithms as a whole are similar for diagnosis of WTC; however, the first step of Vereckei (initial R in aVR) is a simple, reproducible, accurate, and fast tool to use. The negativity of this step requires a 'holistic' approach to distinguish VT from SVT.

Kaiser E ，Darrieux FC ，Barbosa SA ，Grinberg R ，Assis-Carmo A ，Sousa JC ，Hachul D ，Pisani CF ，Kosa E ，Pastore CA ，Scanavacca MI ... -  《-》