ABSTRACT
Atrial Fibrillation (AFib) and Atrial Flutter (AFlut) are prevalent irregular heart rhythms that poses significant risks, particularly for the elderly. While automated detection systems show promise, misdiagnoses are common due to symptom similarities. This study investigates the differentiation of AFib from AFlut using standard 12-lead ECGs from the PhysioNet CinC Challenge 2021 (CinC2021) databases, along with data from a private database. We employed both one dimensional-based (1D) and image-based (2D) Deep Learning models, comparing different 1D and 2D Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures for classification. For 1D models, LiteVGG-11 demonstrated the highest performed, achieving an accuracy (Acc) of 77.91 (±1.73%), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 87.17 (±1.29%), F1 score of 76.59 (±1.90%), specificity (Spe) of 71.69 (±4.73%), and sensitivity (Se) of 86.53 (±5.33%). On the other hand, for 2D models the EfficientNet-B2 outperformed other architectures, with an Acc of 75.20 (±3.38%), AUROC of 85.50 (±1.14%), F1 of 71.59 (±3.66%), Spe of 74.76 (±13.85%) and Se of 75.74 (±13.85%). Our findings indicate that distinguishing between AFib and AFlut is non-trivial, with 1D signals exhibiting superior performance compared to their 2D counterparts. Furthermore, it’s noteworthy that the performance of our models on the CinC2021 databases was considerably lower than on our private dataset.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was financially supported in part by Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) - grant no 2021/12935-0, the Foxconn Brazil, and the Zerbini Foundation as part of the research project "Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Medicine".
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research was approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB) of the Heart Institute (InCor) - Clinics Hospital University of Sao Paulo Medical School (HCFMUSP), registration CAAE 45070821.3.0000.0068, as part of the Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Medicine Project.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This work was supported in part by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) – grant no 2021/12935-0, the Foxconn Brazil, and the Zerbini Foundation as part of the research project “Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Medicine”
We revised the text, added a figure that better describe our preprocessing steps and added a conclusion section and changed the template.
Data Availability
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found in the PhysioNet databank: https://physionet.org/content/challenge-2021/1.0.2/. Private InCor-DB dataset will be made available on request.