Validation of a novel automated signal analysis tool for ablation of Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome

• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217282
• Publication Date: 2019-06-26T17:29:53Z
• Authors: Scott R. Ceresnak; Robert H. Pass; Anne M. Dubin; Lingyao Yang; Kara S. Motonaga; Haley Hedlin; Kishor Avasarala; Anthony Trela; Doff B. McElhinney; Christopher Janson; Lynn Nappo; Xuefeng B. Ling; Gregory J. Gates
• Keywords: Male; Adolescent; Science; Q; R; Pilot Projects; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Predictive Value of Tests; Medicine; Humans; Female; Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome; Child; Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac; Software; Research Article; Retrospective Studies

In previous pilot work we demonstrated that a novel automated signal analysis tool could accurately identify successful ablation sites during Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) ablation at a single center.We sought to validate and refine this signal analysis tool in a larger multi-center cohort of children with WPW.A retrospective review was performed of signal data from children with WPW who underwent ablation at two pediatric arrhythmia centers from 2008-2015. All patients with WPW ≤ 21 years who underwent invasive electrophysiology study and ablation with ablation signals available for review were included. Signals were excluded if temperature or power delivery was inadequate or lesion time was < 5 seconds. Ablation lesions were reviewed for each patient. Signals were classified as successful if there was loss of antegrade and retrograde accessory pathway (AP) conduction or unsuccessful if ablation did not eliminate AP conduction. Custom signal analysis software analyzed intracardiac electrograms for amplitudes, high and low frequency components, integrated area, and signal timing components to create a signal score. We validated the previously published signal score threshold 3.1 in this larger, more diverse cohort and explored additional scoring options. Logistic regression with lasso regularization using Youden's index criterion and a cost-benefit criterion to identify thresholds was considered as a refinement to this score.347 signals (141 successful, 206 unsuccessful) in 144 pts were analyzed [mean age 13.2 ± 3.9 years, 96 (67%) male, 66 (45%) left sided APs]. The software correctly identified the signals as successful or unsuccessful in 276/347 (80%) at a threshold of 3.1. The performance of other thresholds did not significantly improve the predictive ability. A signal score threshold of 3.1 provided the following diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing a successful from unsuccessful signal: sensitivity 83%, specificity 77%, PPV 71%, NPV 87%.An automated signal analysis software tool reliably distinguished successful versus unsuccessful ablation electrograms in children with WPW when validated in a large, diverse cohort. Refining the tools using an alternative threshold and statistical method did not improve the original signal score at a threshold of 3.1. This software was effective across two centers and multiple operators and may be an effective tool for ablation of WPW.