| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 1997;95:1386-1393.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
From the Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Diseases Section, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City (P.L., R.L.); Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela (P.G.); Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (R.G.); Electrical Engineering Department, Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis (E.J.B.); Institut de Cibernética, Barcelona, Spain (P.C.); and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, St Luke'sRoosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY (J.S.S.).
Correspondence to Paul Lander, PhD, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cardiology Research Service (151-F), 921 NE 13th St, Oklahoma City, OK 73104.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and Results We studied 173 patients followed after myocardial infarction for a mean duration of 14±7 months. Sixteen arrhythmic events occurred, defined as sudden cardiac death, documented sustained ventricular tachycardia, or nonfatal cardiac arrest. Noninvasive indices of arrhythmia risk were measured, including AIQP, conventional SAECG, Holter, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Abnormal intra-QRS potentials were defined as abnormal signals occurring anywhere within the QRS period. They were estimated with a lead-specific, parametric modeling method that removed the smooth, predictable part of the QRS. AIQPs are characterized by the remaining transient, unpredictable component of the QRS and manifest as low-amplitude notches and slurs. A combined XYZ-lead AIQP index exhibited higher specificity (95%) and predictive value (PV) (+PV, 47%; -PV, 94%) than the conventional SAECG in combination with Holter and LVEF (specificity, 89%; +PV, 25%; -PV, 93%).
Conclusions AIQP improved specificity and predictive value, compared with conventional tests, for prediction of arrhythmic events. AIQP emerged as the best noninvasive univariate predictor of arrhythmic events after myocardial infarction in this study. A review of several other reports shows that AIQP in the present study outperformed the conventional predictive indices reported in those other data sets.
Key Words: potentials computers tachycardia myocardial infarction
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article presents the concept of abnormal intra-QRS potentials, defined as abnormal signals that can occur anywhere within the high-resolution QRS period during normal sinus rhythm. We hypothesize that AIQPs, like conventional late potentials, arise from myocardial infarct regions of scarring and are a potential marker of reentry. AIQPs are low-amplitude notches and slurs that may be invisible in the standard ECG. A computerized method for detection of AIQPs has recently been developed, based on parametric modeling of the high-resolution QRS.11 For many years, notches and slurs visible in the standard ECG have been associated with disruption of ventricular activation in the presence of scarring.12 13 14 15 16 17 However, a link between visible QRS notches and slurs and arrhythmias has not been established. The rationale for a link between AIQPs and arrhythmogenesis is strong, although a formal pathophysiological basis has yet to be established. The premise underlying this link is that abnormal activation related to scarring need not outlast the normal QRS period to participate in or be a marker for a reentry substrate.
Many studies have shown discrepancies between the presence of reentrant VT and the incidence of late potential detection. These include reported lower incidences of late potentials with anterior MI18 and comparative mapping of late potentials from intracardiac and body-surface recordings.19 20 21 In the latter studies, intracardiac recordings of fractionated electrograms at or distal from the site of reentry did not always outlast the normal QRS period in the body-surface SAECG. Most recently, abnormal intra-QRS signals have been implicated in reentrant and focal mechanisms of VT soon after MI.22 23
Other attempts have been made to analyze hypothesized abnormal intra-QRS signals in either the time or frequency domain. Abboud et al24 and Mori-Avi et al25 used frequency-sampled bandpass filtering to assess changes in high-frequency QRS energy in the presence of ischemia. Cain et al26 proposed power spectral analysis as a means of identifying frequency ranges that may be linked to arrhythmogenic signals. In response to the limitations of spectral analysis, we proposed the technique of spectrotemporal mapping,27 28 29 combining information in both the time and frequency domains into a single, joint distribution. Haberl et al30 and Kelen et al31 proposed quantitative approaches to analyzing the SAECG in the time-frequency plane to identify signal features linked to arrhythmia risk. These approaches have technique-dependent limitations,28 29 and their application remains controversial.
In this work, the abnormal intra-QRS signal is considered solely a time-domain phenomenon (ie, a transient, low-amplitude notch or slur), and no assumptions about its frequency characteristics are made. This avoids the pitfalls of bandpass filtering or spectral analysis, which arise because the ECG is poorly characterized in the frequency domain.
This study had two primary objectives: (1) to determine whether an index of abnormal intra-QRS potentials may be predictive of arrhythmic events and (2) to assess whether AIQPs offer significant advantages over conventional measures of late potentials.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
SAECG Analysis
A conventional analysis of the bidirectionally filtered vector
magnitude was performed with a bidirectional Butterworth filter with
-3 dB cutoff frequencies of 40 Hz (order, 4) and 250 Hz (order,
2).39 The three filtered leads were combined into a vector
magnitude waveform.39 Onset and offset of the
high-resolution QRS complex were determined
automatically34 and subsequently overread to ensure
accuracy. Four parameters were measured from the vector magnitude:
QRSD, RMS40, LAS, and the noise level present in the ST segment,
measured as the RMS value in a 70-ms window.40
Abnormal Intra-QRS Potentials
Abnormal intra-QRS potentials are defined as abnormal signals
that occur anywhere within the high-resolution QRS period. This
includes the terminal portion, currently defined as late potentials.
AIQPs may be thought of as low-amplitude notches and slurs. Langner et
al14 15 16 introduced the concept of a high-fidelity ECG in
1952. With an oscilloscope and film recorder, the QRS complex was
expanded in time, revealing notches and slurs that were called
"high-frequency" components. Flowers et al12 13
showed that the timing of notches, postulated to represent an abrupt
change in direction of a ventricular activation wave, correlated with
the site of MI. Although notches and slurs have traditionally been
considered high-frequency components, we have argued that this
terminology is misleading.11 41 Notches and slurs, and
hence AIQPs, cannot be isolated by filtering or spectral
analysis.11 The frequency-domain description is inadequate
since notches and slurs and AIQPs are uniquely characterized in the
time domain as transient signals: biphasic or multiphasic spikes, or
abrupt changes of gradient.
A new, computerized method has been developed to measure abnormal
intra-QRS potentials in the time domain on the basis of parametric
modeling.11 The individual-lead SAECG QRS complex is
presented unfiltered to be mathematically modeled. Only an approximate
knowledge of the QRS onset and offset is needed. The time-domain SAECG
signal is preprocessed by decimation to an equivalent sampling rate of
1000 Hz11 and transformed to the frequency domain. This is
accomplished via the DCT, defined as
![]() |
![]() |
(n)
is computed as a linear regression, expressed conveniently in matrix
form as
(n)=
T(n)
, where the model is
=(a1a2...anab0b1...bnb)
and the transpose of the regression vector is defined as
T(n)=[-y(n-1)...-y(n-na)u(n)u(n-1)...u(n-nb)]T.
The modeling process isolates the smooth, predictable part of the QRS. The modeled QRS signal is then restored to the time domain and subtracted from the original QRS signal. The difference is a residual signal that represents the unpredictable, transient part of the QRS, ie, the part that cannot be modeled. The residual is the abnormal intra-QRS signal, or AIQP waveform. It is quantified by computation of the RMS amplitude between the QRS limits.11 The modeling process may be thought of as a form of filtering in which the filter is designed to fit the smooth, predictable part of the QRS.
Selection of the lead-specific ARX model orders is a key step. This was
made empirically by use of two test groups of data, the 16
arrhythmic-event patients and 16 randomly chosen no-event patients. A
range of models was fitted to each of the 32 subjects. For each lead
independently, the model that maximized the ratio of mean AIQP
amplitudes between the arrhythmic-event and no-event groups was
selected. Low-order models were unable to represent features such as
the Q wave adequately. Conversely, high-order models were able to
represent some notch and slur features. In both cases, the residual
failed to represent AIQPs accurately. The best distinction in mean AIQP
amplitudes between the arrhythmic-event and no-event groups was found
over a broad range of models of intermediate order. Technical details
and full results of this procedure are described in Reference 1111 . As
hypothesized, amplitudes of AIQPs were found to be significantly higher
statistically in the arrhythmic-event than in the no-event test group.
This allowed determination of critical values to discriminate between
the two patient test groups. These values are given in Table 1
, together with the selected lead-specific model
orders. The parameter AIQPXYZ was defined as the presence of an
abnormal AIQP value in all leads, ie, AIQPX>9.85 µV, AIQPY>41.6
µV, and AIQPZ>12.0 µV. The model orders in Table 1
are not
patient-specific; ie, the same three lead-specific model orders were
used for every patient.
|
Statistical Analysis
Mean values of SAECG parameters between the arrhythmic-event and
no-event groups were compared by use of unpaired t tests. A
level of P=.05 was considered significant. Similarities
between parameters and their tendency to vary independently were
assessed with the Spearman rank correlation and concordance (Kendall's
b), respectively. We used t tests to determine the
significance of each correlation and concordance measurement. A level
of P=.05 was considered significant, and P=.01
was considered highly significant. Determination of relative risk and
the independence of parameters used as univariate predictors of
arrhythmic events was performed with the proportional-hazards (Cox)
risk model. Survival curves were computed with the Kaplan-Meier method
and assessed for significance with log-rank tests. All statistical
analysis was performed with the SAS software package (SAS Institute
Inc).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Table 2
shows the mean RMS amplitudes of AIQPs in the
XYZ leads for the arrhythmic-event and no-event groups. Mean AIQP
amplitudes are greater in the arrhythmic-event group in all three
leads. AIQP values in the Y lead are significantly larger than in the
other two leads. The lower, Y leadspecific model order maximized
discrimination between arrhythmic-event and no-event subjects but also
suggests that because of its ECG morphology, the Y lead is more
difficult to model accurately than the other two leads. An F test
suggested that variances of the X- and Z-lead data are unequal. Under
this assumption, the probability values resulting from a two-tailed
t test show only the X-lead AIQP values to be significantly
different (P<.05) between the two patient groups. A
one-tailed t test testing the initial hypothesis underlying
the studythat AIQPs have a greater as opposed to unequal amplitude in
the arrhythmic-event groupwould halve these probability values and
hence would suggest significant differences for both the X and Z leads.
Mean QRSDs are also shown in Table 2
and are significantly different
between the arrhythmic-event and no-event groups.
|
Table 3
shows the Spearman rank correlation coefficients
between the AIQP parameters and the SAECG QRSD. The correlation was
tested for significance (P<.05). The data are presented
separately for the arrhythmic-event and no-event groups. In the
arrhythmic-event group, AIQP parameters appear to be independent of
QRSD. Among the AIQP values, leads X and Z are significantly
correlated; however, lead Y appears to be uncorrelated with the other
leads. Conversely, in the no-event group, all three XYZ AIQP parameters
appear to be correlated with QRSD. Among the AIQP values, all leads
appear to be correlated with the exception of lead Y with lead Z.
Concordance values, which measure the tendency of the parameters to
vary together, follow a pattern very similar to the correlation results
for both patient groups. These data suggest that AIQPs and late
potentials both tend to be absent in the no-event group. In the
arrhythmic-event group, AIQPs and late potentials both tend to be
present but may be independent of each other.
|
Fig 2
shows Kaplan-Meier survival plots for prediction
of arrhythmic events by QRSD and by AIQPXYZ, the latter defined above
as an abnormal value in all three leads. Abnormal test curves (AIQPXYZ+
and QRSD+) are denoted by solid lines. Normal test curves are denoted
by a dotted line (QRSD-) and a dashed line (AIQPXYZ-). Both
parameters are significant predictors when tested individually by
computing univariate
2 for the log-rank
test (QRSD, P=.046; AIQPXYZ,
P<.0001). When the two parameters are considered together,
with a stepwise sequence of
2 for the log-rank
test, AIQPXYZ is seen to be the most powerful independent predictor
(QRSD, P=.17; AIQPXYZ, P<.0001). The curves
are influenced by the loss to follow-up of no-event subjects. From Fig 2
, AIQPXYZ outperforms QRSD for both negative and positive test
results, suggesting a superior index for prediction of arrhythmic
events in this data set.
|
A Cox proportional-hazards model was set up to assess the risk of
developing an arrhythmic event with abnormal QRSD and/or AIQPXYZ
parameters. The test of QRSD
110 ms (n=51) was a borderline
significant univariate predictor (P=.055), with an increased
risk for arrhythmic events of 2.6 times. AIQPXYZ+ (n=16) was a highly
significant univariate predictor (P<.0001), with an
increased risk for arrhythmic events of 8.3 times. With a stepwise risk
model, AIQPXYZ was the only statistically significant, independent
predictor of arrhythmic events when AIQPXYZ and QRSD were considered
together (AIQPXYZ: relative risk=7.1, P=.0002; QRSD
110 ms:
relative risk=1.9, P=.20).
The results for QRSD presented in this article differ slightly from
those reported by Steinberg et al5 with this data set. The
present definition of an abnormal QRSD is QRSD
110 ms, as opposed to
QRSD>110 ms.3 In addition, 173 subjects (with 16
arrhythmic events) were studied as opposed to 182 (also with 16
arrhythmic events) in the original report.3 The omission
of 9 no-event subjects by definition had no effect on sensitivity with
any of the tests reported and negligible effects on specificity and
PVs.
Relative Performances of AIQP and Other Noninvasive Variables for
Prediction of Arrhythmic Events
Table 4
lists the clinical performances of the
parameters AIQP, QRSD, SAECG (the combination of QRSD, RMS40, and LAS),
LVEF, Holter, previous MI, and various logical combinations.
Combinations of SAECG, LVEF, and Holter, which were previously reported
with this data set by Steinberg et al,5 are shown for
comparison with the new AIQP-based data. AIQP parameters combine
effectively with a logical and, denoted by AIQPXYZ
(AIQPX>9.85 µV RMS andAIQPY>41.6 µV RMS
and AIQPZ>12.0 µV RMS). The combination of AIQPXYZ
or QRSD
110 ms yields a modest incremental improvement in
the trade-off between sensitivity and +PV over AIQPXYZ alone. However,
overall accuracy is reduced, which, taken with the results of the
proportional hazards analysis presented above, suggests that AIQPXYZ
provides most of the predictive power. A sample of combinations of AIQP
and other variables is also presented for the sole purpose of showing
the improved efficacy of AIQP compared with the conventional SAECG.
AIQPXYZ and H3 (a logical and of the three Holter
parameters: HPVC
10 and HCPL>0 and HVT>0) gave
an accuracy of 93%. Specificity and +PV were 100%, with sensitivity
at a modest 19%. Conversely, a very high sensitivity of 94% was
attained by a logical or combination of AIQPXYZ, H3,
QRSD
120 ms, or LVEF
30%. Accompanying PVs were 21%
(+PV) and 99% (-PV). Specificity (64%) and accuracy (67%) were
compromised. Although these sample results cannot be tested for
statistical significance (and hence may not be reproducible in other
data sets), they compare favorably with those previously reported in
this population, significantly outperforming the results of
conventional analysis (marked by a dagger [
] in Table 4
).5 Table 4
offers a comprehensive view of the
best-performing clinical tests with the data set. Other logical
combinations of parameters with lower clinical performance were also
evaluated but were not included in the table.
|
Impact of Noise on Clinical Performance of AIQP
None of the lead-specific AIQP parameters correlated with noise by
the Spearman rank test. In subjects with low-level terminal QRS
activity, ie, RMS40 <30 µV RMS (n=83), QRSD, RMS40, and LAS were
significantly correlated both with final averaged noise levels,
measured from the vector magnitude, and among each other
(P<.0001).
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Comparison of AIQP Results With Previous SAECG Reports
Table 5
reviews the clinical performance of the
SAECG and other noninvasive markers of arrhythmia risk for the present
study and previous reports. The seven tabulated studies show a wide
range in clinical usefulness of the tests reported and in prevalence of
arrhythmic events and number of patients studied. In addition, the
definition of conventional late potentialsa combination of some or
all of QRSD, RMS40, and LASvaried significantly. Averaged noise
levels, which can significantly affect the sensitivity/specificity
trade-off,40 also varied significantly and were mostly
unreported. The clinical performance data have in many instances been
calculated from other data presented in the original reports. The table
presents a complete, comparative performance overview of the
studies.
|
AIQP emerged as the best univariate predictor of arrhythmic events, with a higher accuracy and specificity and a better trade-off in sensitivity/+PV than either conventional late potentials (SAECG), heart rate variability, Holter, or left ventricular performance measures. Negative PV was also at least comparable to that of other tests, despite the high specificity of AIQP. Positive PV depends heavily on the prevalence of arrhythmic events, as can be seen from contrasting the studies of Gomes et al6 (prevalence, 14.7% to 18.3%; +PV, 29% to 50%) and Savard et al10 (prevalence, 3.3%; +PV, 7% to 11%). In this case, accuracy is the best overall figure of merit for a test. AIQP has a favorable accuracy (90%) compared with SAECG (mean of six studies, 71%) and has comparable or better accuracy than most combinations of tests.
AIQPs may prove to be a more reliable and comprehensive measure of abnormal activation than conventional late potentials. The incidence of late potentials is expected to be sensitive to averaged noise levels and infarct location.40 In contrast, AIQPs will be detected anywhere within the high-resolution QRS period, including the terminal portion, to which the search for abnormal potentials is currently restricted. Therefore, AIQPs do not depend on infarct location. AIQPs are also little affected by moderate averaged noise levels, as verified by no correlation between AIQPs and noise. The modeling process does not require exact determination of QRS onset and offset, relaxing the most significant technical constraint of SAECG analysis. Finally, AIQPs could probably be estimated accurately from a smaller, noisier ensemble average than the 200 to 600 beats presently needed to reach a 0.3-µV RMS noise end point. Although further work is needed to find the appropriate noise end point for AIQP analysis, a simplified signal averaging procedure might be an advantage for the AIQP method.
In this study, we compare the performance of AIQP with a definition of
conventional late potentials based on QRSD alone. This sole use of QRSD
as the performance maximum with SAECG requires justification. In
comparisons of AIQPs and conventional SAECG indices, Table 5
raises the
question of the relative importance of AIQP, QRSD, RMS40, and LAS. In
this and previous data sets,40 inclusion of RMS40 or LAS
degraded the clinical performance of the SAECG compared with QRSD
alone. This was due to the strong correlations among QRSD, RMS40, LAS,
and noise. The data in Table 5
support the assertion that QRSD alone is
a more accurate index of arrhythmia risk than any combination of the
three SAECG parameters. Savard et al10 found QRSD alone to
be the single most useful SAECG index in their study of 2461 patients.
We also calculated the clinical performance characteristics of QRSD
alone from data presented in the article by Kuchar et al.7
In that study, accuracy for QRSD improved by 20 percentage points over
SAECG (the best combination of QRSD, RMS40, and LAS). AIQPs gain a
potential advantage over QRSD (and hence over the conventional SAECG)
in that "late potentials" arising from abnormal conduction in the
early part of the QRS may not outlast the normal QRS period and hence
will not be detected by conventional means.
The usefulness of the Holter parameters HPVC and HVT (number of
PCVs/h
10 and presence of runs of VT) was not consistent between
studies. HVT was measured in 5 studies (Kleiger et al,44
Gomes et al,6 Kuchar et al,7 Farrell et
al,9 and the present study) and was found to be a
significant index of arrhythmic events in 4 of them (all except Gomes
et al6 ). HPVC was measured in 6 studies (all except Savard
et al10 ) and was found to be a significant index in 4
(Kleiger et al,44 Cripps et al,8 Farrell et
al,9 and the present study). A similar variability in
clinical usefulness was found in these studies3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 for
other parameters, such as LVEF, Killip class, and the presence of a
previous MI. In the case of Holter, use of the Lown classification
scheme may have increased the variability of the results. As suggested
by Kuchar et al,7 HPVC may have an association with the
likelihood of triggered automaticity. In this context, other factors,
such as the relative prevalence of VT, ventricular fibrillation, and
sudden death events and time of recording after MI may have affected
the measured values and significance of HPVC.
Variability among results of the noninvasive tests is the most
prominent feature of Table 5
. It is probably accounted for in large
part by natural variability (population characteristics, prevalence of
arrhythmic events, time of recording, etc) and methodological
variability (technical factors such as noise, different measurement
algorithms, and different definitions of abnormalcy).
Methodological Considerations for Prospective Studies
AIQP, like late potentials, has a signal processing definition.
From this perspective, AIQPs are a logical extension of the late
potentials concept. However, a significant advantage of the AIQP
concept is that it has a hypothesized pathophysiological basis that may
be examined in either experimental or clinical settings. Such studies
and future prospective clinical studies are needed to verify whether
the increased clinical usefulness of AIQPs over conventional late
potentials in this study can be reproduced.
It should be noted that the AIQP modeling procedure has been designed retrospectively with the present data set. The most important step, selecting the lead-specific model order, is fully developed in a technical article by us.11 Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of our predetermined model orders on the clinical performance of AIQP indices in other data sets.
Conclusions
Abnormal intra-QRS potentials extend the concept of late
potentials from the terminal portion to the entire QRS complex and
provide a new predictive index of arrhythmic events. AIQPs
significantly enhanced the clinical efficacy of the SAECG compared with
conventional parameters. The present retrospective design yielded a
sensitivity, positive PV, and accuracy of 44%, 47%, and 90%,
respectively. These results were achieved in a post-MI population of
173 patients, with a prevalence of arrhythmic events of 9%. This
performance is a significant improvement over conventional noninvasive,
univariate indices of arrhythmia risk. AIQPs may potentially relax the
technical requirements of the SAECG by reducing dependence of the
measured values on (1) noise reduction by signal averaging and (2)
exact determination of QRS limits. Given the present retrospective
experimental design, further investigation is needed both in
elaboration of a pathophysiological basis of AIQP and in prospective
testing with larger clinical populations.
| Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms |
|---|
|
Received March 4, 1996; revision received November 12, 1996; accepted November 12, 1996.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. J. Bailey, A. S. Berson, H. Handelsman, and M. Hodges Utility of current risk stratification tests for predicting major arrhythmic events after myocardial infarction J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 1, 2001; 38(7): 1902 - 1911. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 1997 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |