Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics

Date Submitted: Sep 8, 2020
Date Accepted: Jan 17, 2021

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Human–Computer Agreement of Electrocardiogram Interpretation for Patients Referred to and Declined for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Retrospective Data Analysis Study

Iftikhar A, Bond R, Mcgilligan V, Leslie SJ, Knoery C, Shand J, Ramsewak A, Sharma D, McShane A, Rjoob K, Peace A

Human–Computer Agreement of Electrocardiogram Interpretation for Patients Referred to and Declined for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Retrospective Data Analysis Study

JMIR Med Inform 2021;9(3):e24188

DOI: 10.2196/24188

PMID: 33650984

PMCID: 7967222

Human-Computer Agreement in ECG Interpretation for ‘Turned-Down’ Patients Referred to a Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Service

  • Aleeha Iftikhar; 
  • Raymond Bond; 
  • Victoria Mcgilligan; 
  • Stephen J. Leslie; 
  • Charles Knoery; 
  • James Shand; 
  • Adesh Ramsewak; 
  • Divyesh Sharma; 
  • Anne McShane; 
  • Khaled Rjoob; 
  • Aaron Peace

ABSTRACT

Background:

When a patient is suspected of having an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), patients are accepted or ‘turned-down’ for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) partly based on clinical assessment of the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and STEMI criteria.

Objective:

This paper aims to retrospectively interrogate the agreement rate between the human (specialist nurse called PPCI ‘activator’) and computer interpretations of ECGs for cases where patients are turned-down for PPCI.

Methods:

Various features of patients who were referred for PPCI were analysed. Both the human and computer ECG interpretations were simplified to either being suggestive or not suggestive of AMI to avoid analysis of complex heterogeneous and synonymous diagnostic terms. Analysis to measure agreement was carried out along with logistic regression to measure the association between these interpretations (and other variables) in predicting mortality.

Results:

A total of 1464 patients referred for PPCI were turned-down. For these cases, 722 (49%) of the computerised diagnoses were suggestive of AMI whereas 634 (43%) of the human interpretations were suggestive of AMI (p<0.001). The human and computer agreed that there was a possible AMI in 342 cases (23.3%). However, both agreed more often that the patient was not having an AMI (n=450 [31%]). The overall agreement rate was 54%. Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) showed a poor agreement (κ= 0.08 [p=0.001]). Other factors including age (odds ratio=1.06, 1.07) and chest pain (odds ratio=0.47, 0.59) were the only independent variables that were statistically significant (p<0.01) in predicting mortality after 30 days and 1 year. The odds for mortality within 1 year of referral were lower in patients with chest pain compared to those patients without chest pain. A referral being ‘out of hours’ is a ‘trending’ variable (odds ratio=1.93, 1.41, p=0.09) for predicting the odds of 1-year mortality. Other insights related to human and computer performance over hours of the day are also provided.

Conclusions:

Mortality in patients turned down for PPCI is higher than the reported mortality for STEMI patients at one year. Agreement between computerised and human ECG interpretation is poor perhaps leading to a high rate of inappropriate referrals. Work is needed to improve machine and human decision making when reading ECGs to ensure that patients are signposted to the correct treatment facility for time-critical therapy.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Iftikhar A, Bond R, Mcgilligan V, Leslie SJ, Knoery C, Shand J, Ramsewak A, Sharma D, McShane A, Rjoob K, Peace A

Human–Computer Agreement of Electrocardiogram Interpretation for Patients Referred to and Declined for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Retrospective Data Analysis Study

JMIR Med Inform 2021;9(3):e24188

DOI: 10.2196/24188

PMID: 33650984

PMCID: 7967222

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.