Dataset Information

Evaluation of general practitioners' single-lead electrocardiogram interpretation skills: a case-vignette study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Handheld single-lead electrocardiograms (1L-ECG) present a welcome addition to the diagnostic arsenal of general practitioners (GPs). However, little is known about GPs' 1L-ECG interpretation skills, and thus its reliability in real-world practice.

Objective

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs in diagnosing atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/Afl) based on 1L-ECGs, with and without the aid of automatic algorithm interpretation, as well as other relevant ECG abnormalities.

Methods

We invited 2239 Dutch GPs for an online case-vignette study. GPs were asked to interpret four 1L-ECGs, randomly drawn from a pool of 80 case-vignettes. These vignettes were obtained from a primary care study that used smartphone-operated 1L-ECG recordings using the AliveCor KardiaMobile. Interpretation of all 1L-ECGs by a panel of cardiologists was used as reference standard.

Results

A total of 457 (20.4%) GPs responded and interpreted a total of 1613 1L-ECGs. Sensitivity and specificity for AF/Afl (prevalence 13%) were 92.5% (95% CI: 82.5-97.0%) and 89.8% (95% CI: 85.5-92.9%), respectively. PPV and NPV for AF/Afl were 45.7% (95% CI: 22.4-70.9%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 97.1-99.5%), respectively. GP interpretation skills did not improve in case-vignettes where the outcome of automatic AF-detection algorithm was provided. In detecting any relevant ECG abnormality (prevalence 22%), sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 96.3% (95% CI: 92.8-98.2%), 68.8% (95% CI: 62.4-74.6%), 43.9% (95% CI: 27.7-61.5%) and 97.9% (95% CI: 94.9-99.1%), respectively.

Conclusions

GPs can safely rule out cardiac arrhythmias with 1L-ECGs. However, whenever an abnormality is suspected, confirmation by an expert-reader is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Karregat EPM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006764 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe standard configuration's set of twelve electrocardiogram (ECG) leads is optimal for the medical diagnosis of diverse cardiac conditions. However, it requires ten electrodes on the patient's limbs and chest, which is uncomfortable and cumbersome. Interlead conversion methods can reconstruct missing leads and enable more comfortable acquisitions, including in wearable devices, while still allowing for adequate diagnoses. Currently, methodologies for interlead ECG conversion either require multiple reference (input) leads and/or require input signals to be temporally aligned considering the ECG landmarks.MethodsUnlike the methods in the literature, this paper studies the possibility of converting ECG signals into all twelve standard configuration leads using signal segments from only one reference lead, without temporal alignment (blindly-segmented). The proposed methodology is based on a deep learning encoder-decoder U-Net architecture, which is compared with adaptations based on convolutional autoencoders and label refinement networks. Moreover, the method is explored for conversion with one single shared encoder or multiple individual encoders for each lead.ResultsDespite the more challenging settings, the proposed methodology was able to attain state-of-the-art level performance in multiple target leads, and both lead I and lead II seem especially suitable to convert certain sets of leads. In cross-database tests, the methodology offered promising results despite acquisition setup differences. Furthermore, results show that the presence of medical conditions does not have a considerable effect on the method's performance.ConclusionsThis study shows the feasibility of converting ECG signals using single-lead blindly-segmented inputs. Although the results are promising, further efforts should be devoted towards the improvement of the methodologies, especially the robustness to diverse acquisition setups, in order to be applicable to cardiac health monitoring in wearable devices and less obtrusive clinical scenarios.

Project description:BackgroundIn developed countries, primary care physicians manage most patients with depression. Relatively few studies allow a comprehensive assessment of the decisions these doctors make in these cases and the factors associated with these decisions. We studied how general practitioners (GPs) manage the acute phase of a new episode of non-comorbid major depression (MD) and the factors associated with their decisions.Methodology/principal findingsIn this cross-sectional telephone survey, professional investigators interviewed an existing panel of randomly selected GPs (1249/1431, response rate: 87.3%). We used case-vignettes about new MD episodes in 8 versions differing by patient gender and socioeconomic status (blue/white collar) and disease intensity (mild/severe). GPs were randomized to receive one of these 8 versions. Overall, 82.6% chose pharmacotherapy; among them GPs chose either an antidepressant (79.8%) or an anxiolytic/hypnotic alone (18.5%). They rarely recommended referral for psychotherapy alone, regardless of severity, but 38.2% chose it in combination with pharmacotherapy. Antidepressant prescription was associated with severity of depression (OR?=?1.74; 95%CI?=?1.33-2.27), patient gender (female, OR?=?0.75; 95%CI?=?0.58-0.98), GP personal characteristics (e.g. history of antidepressant treatment: OR?=?2.31; 95%CI?=?1.41-3.81) and GP belief that antidepressants are overprescribed in France (OR?=?0.63; 95%CI?=?0.48-0.82). The combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy was associated with severity of depression (OR?=?1.82; 95%CI?=?1.31-2.52), patient's white-collar status (OR?=?1.58; 95%CI?=?1.14-2.18), and GPs' dissatisfaction with cooperation with mental health specialists (OR?=?0.63; 95%CI?=?0.45-0.89). These choices were not associated with either GPs' professional characteristics or psychiatrist density in the GP's practice areas.Conclusions/significanceGPs' choices for treating severe MD complied with clinical guidelines better than those for mild MD; GPs rarely recommended psychotherapy alone but rather as a complement to pharmacotherapy. Their decisions were mainly influenced by personal life experience and attitudes regarding treatment more than by professional characteristics. These results call into question the methods and content of continuing medical education in France about MD management.