Orlov Michael V, Houde-Walter Haley Q, Qu Fujian, Swiryn Steven, Waldo Albert L, Benditt David G, Olshansky Brian
Steward St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Steward St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Jul;13(7):1475-80. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.03.013. Epub 2016 Mar 7.
Tachycardia diagnoses from implantable device recordings ultimately depend on the analysis of captured electrograms (EGMs). The degree to which atrial EGMs improve tachycardia discrimination, dependent on the level of expertise of the medical professional involved, remains uncertain.
The purpose of this article was to determine whether atrial EGM recordings improve tachycardia discrimination and whether this improvement, if any, varies for professionals with different levels of training.
Expert-adjudicated supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) dual-chamber EGMs (DEGMs) from the Registry of Atrial Tachycardia and Atrial Fibrillation Episodes in the Cardiac Rhythm Management Device Population were provided to electrophysiology specialists, electrophysiology fellows (EPF), and nurse practitioners or physician assistants (NPPA). Each participant diagnosed 112 EGM episodes presented in random sequence (61 VTs and 51 SVTs) and independently categorized each as "SVT," "VT," or "uncertain" in 2 stages. First, participants analyzed ventricular EGMs (VEGMs) alone (atrial channel covered). Second, the tracings were randomized and reanalyzed with atrial EGMs exposed. The diagnostic accuracy of VEGMs alone vs DEGMs was assessed for each group.
For all 3 groups, diagnostic accuracy improved significantly (>20% for VTs and >15% for SVTs; P < .01 for all) when DEGMs were provided. Electrophysiology specialists diagnosed VTs more accurately than did EPF and NPPA (VEGM: 73.1%±7.6% vs 58.7%±15.5% and 56.1%±14.1%; P < .01; DEGM: 98.0%±2.7% vs 90.8%±16.0% and 80.3%±7.4%; P < .01). EPF diagnosed VTs more accurately than did NPPA only when DEGMs were provided. There was no significant intergroup difference in SVT diagnoses.
DEGMs are superior to VEGMs alone for tachycardia discrimination at all levels of expertise. The level of training affects diagnostic accuracy with and without atrial EGMs.
通过植入式设备记录进行心动过速诊断最终依赖于对捕获的心电图(EGM)的分析。心房EGM在多大程度上能改善心动过速的鉴别诊断,这取决于相关医学专业人员的专业水平,目前尚不确定。
本文旨在确定心房EGM记录是否能改善心动过速的鉴别诊断,以及这种改善(如果存在)对于不同培训水平的专业人员是否有所不同。
从心律管理设备人群中的房性心动过速和心房颤动发作登记处获取经专家判定的室上性心动过速(SVT)和室性心动过速(VT)双腔EGM(DEGM),提供给电生理专家、电生理住院医师(EPF)以及执业护士或医师助理(NPPA)。每位参与者对以随机顺序呈现的112个EGM发作进行诊断(61个VT和51个SVT),并分两个阶段独立将每个发作分类为“SVT”、“VT”或“不确定”。首先,参与者仅分析心室EGM(心房通道覆盖)。其次,将记录随机化并在暴露心房EGM的情况下重新分析。评估每组单独使用VEGM与使用DEGM时的诊断准确性。
对于所有三组,当提供DEGM时,诊断准确性均显著提高(VT提高>20%,SVT提高>15%;所有P<.01)。电生理专家诊断VT的准确性高于EPF和NPPA(VEGM:73.1%±7.6%对58.7%±15.5%和56.1%±14.1%;P<.01;DEGM:98.0%±2.7%对90.8%±16.0%和80.3%±7.4%;P<.01)。仅在提供DEGM时,EPF诊断VT的准确性高于NPPA。在SVT诊断方面,组间无显著差异。
在所有专业水平上,DEGM在心动过速鉴别诊断方面优于单独使用VEGM。培训水平会影响有无心房EGM时的诊断准确性。