4.4 Article

A Simple Method to Detect Atrial Fibrillation Using RR Intervals

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 10, Pages 1494-1497

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.01.028

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Biotronik SE and Co. KG, Berlin, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Implantable loop recorders have been developed for long-term monitoring of cardiac arrhythmia, but their accuracy for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection is unsatisfactory. We sought to develop and evaluate a simple method for detecting AF using RR intervals. The new AF detection algorithm is based on a map that plots RR intervals versus change of RR intervals (RdR). The map is divided by a grid with 25-ms resolution in 2 axes and nonempty cells are counted to classify AF and non-AF episodes. We evaluated the performance of the method using 4 PhysioNet databases: MIT-BIH AF database, MIT-BIH arrhythmia database, MIT-BIH normal sinus rhythm (NSR) database, and NSR RR interval database (total 145 patients, 1,826 hours NSR, 96 hours AF, and 11 hours other rhythms). Each record is divided into consecutive windows containing 32, 64, or 128 RR intervals. AF detection is performed for each window and classification results are compared to annotations. A window is labeled true AF if >1/2 of cycles in the window are annotated as AF or non-AF otherwise. The RdR map shows signature patterns corresponding to various heart rhythms. Optimal nonempty cell cut-off threshold for AF detection was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, which yields excellent sensitivity and specificity for window sizes 32 (94.4% and 92.6%, respectively), 64 (95.8% and 94.3%), and 128 (95.9% and 95.4%). In conclusion, a single metric derived from the RdR map can achieve robust AF detection within as few as 32 heart beats. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2011;107:1494-1497)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available