Impact of artificial intelligence arrhythmia mapping on time to first ablation, procedure duration, and fluoroscopy use

Sutton R. Fox,Avinash Toomu,Kelly Gu,Jessica Kang,Kevin Sung,Frederick T. Han,Kurt S. Hoffmayer,Jonathan C. Hsu,Farshad Raissi,Gregory K. Feld,Andrew D. McCulloch,Gordon Ho,David E. Krummen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16237
IF: 2.7
2024-03-06
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Abstract:ECG data during the clinical arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia [VT], upper left figure) is analyzed with an artificial intelligence algorithm which identifies a probable location of the source of the arrhythmia (left ventricular anterolateral papillary muscle, lower left figure). This information allows more focused intracardiac mapping (activation map during VT, center figure) and accelerates the ablation process, reducing time to first ablation, overall procedure duration (right figure), and fluoroscopy use. Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) ECG arrhythmia mapping provides arrhythmia source localization using 12‐lead ECG data; whether this information impacts procedural efficiency is unknown. We performed a retrospective, case‐control study to evaluate the hypothesis that AI ECG mapping may reduce time to ablation, procedural duration, and fluoroscopy. Materials and Methods Cases in which system output was used were retrospectively enrolled according to IRB‐approved protocols at each site. Matched control cases were enrolled in reverse chronological order beginning on the last day for which the technology was unavailable. Controls were matched based upon physician, institution, arrhythmia, and a predetermined complexity rating. Procedural metrics, fluoroscopy data, and clinical outcomes were assessed from time‐stamped medical records. Results The study group consisted of 28 patients (age 65 ± 11 years, 46% female, left atrial dimension 4.1 ± 0.9 cm, LVEF 50 ± 18%) and was similar to 28 controls. The most common arrhythmia types were atrial fibrillation (n = 10), premature ventricular complexes (n = 8), and ventricular tachycardia (n = 6). Use of the system was associated with a 19.0% reduction in time to ablation (133 ± 48 vs. 165 ± 49 min, p = 0.02), a 22.6% reduction in procedure duration (233 ± 51 vs. 301 ± 83 min, p
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?