Cardio-Thoracic Unit, Bordeaux University Hospital (CHU), Pessac, France.
IHU Liryc, Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, fondation Bordeaux Université, Bordeaux, France.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jun;31(6):1493-1506. doi: 10.1111/jce.14518. Epub 2020 May 7.
Morphology algorithms are currently recommended as a standalone discriminator in single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, these proprietary algorithms differ in both design and nominal programming.
To compare three different algorithms with nominal versus advanced programming in their ability to discriminate between ventricular (VT) and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).
In nine European centers, VT and SVTs were collected from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic dual- and triple-chamber ICDs via their respective remote monitoring portals. Percentage morphology matches were recorded for selected episodes which were classified as VT or SVT by means of atrioventricular comparison. The sensitivity and related specificity of each manufacturer discriminator was determined at various values of template match percentage from receiving operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis.
A total of 534 episodes were retained for the analysis. In ROC analyses, Abbott Far Field MD (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.91; P < .001) and Boston Scientific RhythmID (AUC: 0.95; P < .001) show higher AUC than Medtronic Wavelet (AUC: 0.81; P < .001) when tested for their ability to discriminate VT from SVT. At nominal % match threshold all devices provided high sensitivity in VT identification, (91%, 100%, and 90%, respectively, for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic) but contrasted specificities in SVT discrimination (85%, 41%, and 62%, respectively). Abbott and Medtronic's nominal thresholds were similar to the optimal thresholds. Optimization of the % match threshold improved the Boston Scientific specificity to 79% without compromising the sensitivity.
Proprietary morphology discriminators show important differences in their ability to discriminate SVT. How much this impact the overall discrimination process remains to be investigated.
形态算法目前被推荐作为单腔植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)的独立鉴别器。然而,这些专有算法在设计和标称编程方面存在差异。
比较三种不同算法在标称编程与高级编程下区分室性心动过速(VT)和室上性心动过速(SVT)的能力。
在 9 个欧洲中心,通过各自的远程监测门户从 Abbott、Boston Scientific 和 Medtronic 的双腔和三腔 ICD 中收集 VT 和 SVT。记录了选定的心动过速与 SVT 片段的形态匹配百分比,这些片段通过房室比较进行分类。通过接收操作特征(ROC)曲线分析,从模板匹配百分比的各种值确定每个制造商鉴别器的敏感性和相关特异性。
共保留了 534 个心动过速进行分析。在 ROC 分析中,Abbott Far Field MD(曲线下面积[AUC]:0.91;P<.001)和 Boston Scientific RhythmID(AUC:0.95;P<.001)在区分 VT 与 SVT 的能力方面表现出比 Medtronic Wavelet(AUC:0.81;P<.001)更高的 AUC。在标称%匹配阈值下,所有设备在 VT 识别方面均具有高敏感性(分别为 Abbott 91%、Boston Scientific 100%和 Medtronic 90%),但在 SVT 鉴别特异性方面存在差异(分别为 Abbott 85%、Boston Scientific 41%和 Medtronic 62%)。Abbott 和 Medtronic 的标称阈值与最优阈值相似。优化%匹配阈值可提高 Boston Scientific 的特异性至 79%,而不影响敏感性。
专有形态鉴别器在区分 SVT 的能力方面存在重要差异。这对整体鉴别过程的影响程度仍有待研究。