Background: Mobile devices are gaining a rising number of users in all countries around the globe. Novel solutions to diagnose patients with out-of-hospital onset of arrhythmic symptoms can be easily used to record such events, but the effectiveness of these devices remain unknown. Methods: In a group of 100 consecutive patients of an academic cardiology care center (mean age 68 ± 14.2 years, males: 66%) a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and a Kardia Mobile (KM) record were registered. Both versions were assessed by three independant groups of physicians. Results: The analysis of comparisons for standard ECG and KM records showed that the latter is of lower quality (p < 0.001). It was non-inferior for detection of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, showed weaker rhythm detection in pacemaker stimulation (p = 0.008), and was superior in sinus rhythm detection (p = 0.02), though. The sensitivity of KM to detect pathological Q-wave was low compared to specificity (20.6% vs. 93.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Basic intervals measured by the KM device, namely PQ, RR, and QT were significantly different (shorter) than those observed in the standard ECG method (160 ms vs. 180 ms [p < 0.001], 853 ms vs. 880 ms [p = 0.03] and 393 ms vs. 400 ms [p < 0.001], respectively). Conclusions: Initial and indicative value of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter detection in KM is comparable to results achieved in standard ECG. KM was superior in detection of sinus rhythm than eyeball evaluation of 12-lead ECG. Though, the PQ and QT intervals were shorter in KM as compared to 12-lead ECG. Clinical value needs to be verified in large studies, though.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the European Union and worldwide. Constant improvement in cardiac care is leading to an increased number of patients with heart failure, which is a challenging condition in terms of clinical management. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is becoming more popular because of its grounded position in guidelines and clinical practice. However, some patients do not respond to treatment as expected. One way of assessing cardiac resynchronization therapy is with ECG analysis. Artificial intelligence is increasing in terms of everyday usability due to the possibility of everyday workflow improvement and, as a result, shortens the time required for diagnosis. A special area of artificial intelligence is machine learning. AI algorithms learn on their own based on implemented data. The aim of this study was to evaluate using artificial intelligence algorithms for detecting inadequate resynchronization therapy. Methods: A total of 1241 ECG tracings were collected from 547 cardiac department patients. All ECG signals were analyzed by three independent cardiologists. Every signal event (QRS-complex) and rhythm was manually classified by the medical team and fully reviewed by additional cardiologists. The results were divided into two parts: 80% of the results were used to train the algorithm, and 20% were used for the test (Cardiomatics, Cracow, Poland). Results: The required level of detection sensitivity of effective cardiac resynchronization therapy stimulation was achieved: 99.2% with a precision of 92.4%. Conclusions: Artificial intelligence algorithms can be a useful tool in assessing the effectiveness of resynchronization therapy.