Automated serial ECG comparison improves computerized interpretation of 12-lead ECG.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of a patient's 12-lead ECG frequently involves comparison to a previously recorded ECG. Automated serial ECG comparison can be helpful not only to note significant ECG changes but also to improve the single-ECG interpretation. Corrections from the previous ECG are carried forward by the serial comparison algorithm when measurements do not change significantly. METHODS: A sample of patients from three hospitals was collected with two or more 12-lead ECGs from each patient. There were 233 serial comparisons from 143 patients. 41% of patients had two ECGs and 59% of patients had more than two ECGs. ECGs were taken from a difficult population as measured by ECG abnormalities, 197/233 abnormal, 11/233 borderline, 14/233 otherwise-normal and 11/233 normal. ECGs were processed with the Philips DXL algorithm and then in time order for each patient with the Philips serial comparison algorithm. To measure accuracy of interpretation and serial change, an expert cardiologist corrected the ECGs in stages. The first ECG was corrected and used as the reference for the second ECG. The second ECG was then corrected and used as the reference for the third ECG and so on. At each stage, the serial comparison algorithm compared an unedited ECG to an earlier edited ECG. Interpretation accuracy was measured by comparing the algorithm to the cardiologist on a statement by statement basis. The effect of serial comparison was measured by the sum of interpretive statement mismatches between the algorithm and cardiologist. Statement mismatches were measured in two ways, (1) exact match and (2) match within the same diagnostic category. RESULTS: The cardiologist used 910 statements over 233 ECGs for an average number of 3.9 statements per ECG and a mode of 4 statements. When automated serial comparison was used, the total number of exact statement mismatches decreased by 29% and the total same-category statement mismatches decreased by 47%. CONCLUSION: Automated serial comparison improves interpretation accuracy in addition to its main role of noting differences between ECGs.

Development of a serial comparison program for conduction defects, acute myocardial infarction, and the use of additional leads.

Serial comparison of electrocardiograms (ECGs) is a useful tool in clinical diagnostic ECG and an enhancement to computer ECG analysis. When an analysis algorithm is modified, the corresponding serial comparison program needs to be updated accordingly. The new Philips diagnostic algorithm increased the number of leads in the ECG from the traditional 12 leads to 16, making it possible to diagnose right ventricular infarct/injury based on right-sided lead V4R. To keep pace with the widespread reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarct, the serial comparison program was revised to recognize the rapid ECG changes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarct following successful reperfusion therapies. The serial comparison program was also enhanced to split "combined" statements in the category of ventricular conduction delay (includes incomplete ventricular conduction delay and bundle-branch blocks) and compare each of the statements separately.

Computerized serial comparison of electrocardiograms: program performance in myocardial infarction.

Serial comparison of electrocardiograms (ECGs) can provide a useful clinical function by reporting to the editing cardiologist the diagnostic changes that have occurred since the previous ECG. This program detects "significant measurement differences" in each of the diagnostic categories to detect these changes. We evaluated the accuracy and use of this serial comparison program by comparing the diagnostic results of the program with those of an expert cardiologist using a database of ECGs obtained from patients with symptoms admitted to the hospital and other laboratory results consistent with acute myocardial infarction. We found that the level of agreement between the computer and the cardiologist was much higher when a current ECG was compared with a previous that had been edited by the cardiologist than when that same ECG was analyzed in isolation.