Detection and removal of pacing artifacts prior to automated analysis of 12-lead ECG

Introduction

Since the 1950s, cardiac pacing became a vital treatment modality for a growing number of cardiovascular patients. Innovations in cardiac pacing expanded indications for implantable devices capable of delivering cardiac pacing.[1] Pacemaker implantation rates increased from 467 per million in 1993 to 616 per million in 2009.[2] In 2014, an estimated 351,000 pacemaker inpatient procedures were performed in the US.[2] The number of patients living with an implanted cardiac pacemaker is steadily growing.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) is widely used to determine the heart rhythm and to evaluate the performance of pacemaker functioning, especially in emergency settings.[3] Atrial-paced and ventricular-paced rhythm and atrioventricular (AV) dual-paced rhythm are included in the list of core primary ECG diagnostic statements, endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiography (ISCE).[4]

Notably, the ECG diagnostic standards enforced the rule that no secondary statements can accompany the primary diagnostic statement of paced rhythm or paced complexes.[4] The rule[4] stemmed from the dogma about secondary repolarization abnormalities, stating that paced ventricular complexes are examples of secondary repolarization abnormalities.[5] Therefore, the consensus is that paced ECG could only be used to diagnose paced rhythm, but, otherwise, it cannot be clinically useful.[5]

Nevertheless, we,[6] and others, showed that cardiac memory could be detected during continued altered activation.[7] Cardiac memory is neither pure primary nor pure secondary repolarization abnormality.[8, 9] Spatial ventricular gradient (SVG) is independent of the activation sequence.[6, 10, 11] Measurement of SVG on paced ECG furnished clinically useful information.[12, 13] Thus, paced ECG carries important data for meaningful analysis, which needs to be further studied.

The first step in the automated analysis of paced ECG is the removal of pacing artifacts. No such algorithm has been previously developed that can both detect and remove a pacing spike artifact from the 12-lead and orthogonal XYZ ECG. This paper presents the development and validation of a novel semi-automated algorithm to detect and remove pacing artifacts. We tested the hypothesis that the newly developed semi-automated algorithm can accurately detect and remove pacing artifacts from a vectorcardiogram (VCG) obtained from 12-lead ECG.

Methods

Algorithm description

The algorithm and open-source software code written in MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) are provided at https://github.com/Tereshchenkolab/Pacing_spike_removal. The algorithm was developed using 10-second digital ECG signal with sampling rate 500Hz. The amplitude resolution was either 1 µV or 5 µV.

Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the developed algorithm. First, baseline wander was removed from the 12-lead ECG. Then XYZ orthogonal ECG was obtained from a 12-lead ECG signal by using the Kors transformation matrix.[15] Once the XYZ leads were obtained, the vector magnitude was calculated from Eq.1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

A. Flowchart representation of the algorithm to detect and remove a pacing artifact. B. Representative example of a pacing artifact on vector magnitude ECG signal.

where is the vector norm, and x, y, and z are the XYZ orthogonal vectors.

Step 1. Pacing artifact onset detection

Slope was calculated for each pair of the consecutive samples on the 10-second ECG recording. The algorithm automatically selected the pacing artifact’s onset (P₁) if the following condition was satisfied. where α_on = pacing artifact onset threshold.

Step 2. Pacing artifact offset detection

Next, the algorithm searched for the pacing artifact’s offset. Since the vector norm is an absolute number, the sum of the slopes measured for each pair of the consecutive samples within the pacing artifact tends to zero, assuming that the pacing artifact’s offset approaches the baseline, which has a value close to zero. However, in practice, the pacing artifact’s offset has a non-zero value due to the saturation effect and baseline deviation. Therefore, we assumed that the offset was an arbitrary positive value, which we referred to as pacing artifact offset threshold, α_off. Thus, the offset point (P₂) was obtained when the following condition was satisfied. where p=t_n+t_n+1 … … … … … … .+t_pand α_off = pacing artifact’s offset threshold.

Step 3. Pacing artifact removal

Once the onset (P₁) and offset (P₂) time points of a pacing artifact were determined, the spike was removed by making the signal values within the detected pacing artifact time window (P₁ – P₂) equal to the value at the adjacent time point just before P_1. This was given by, where v = signal amplitude.

Graphic user interface

A graphic user interface was developed that allows users to choose the threshold values from a given range (Figure 2). Additional user-defined parameters were included. Maximum amplitude defines the range of the upper limit value of the signal. Maximum window size defines the range of the sample points considered as the time window of the pacing spike. Re-run allows re-run of the algorithm recursively if a satisfactory result cannot be obtained by altering the thresholds several times. As shown in Figure 2, the dv/dt curve (orange) is superimposed on the vector magnitude plot, which helps the user check whether the maximum dv/dt falls within the QRS complex window.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Graphic user interface for pacing artifact removal. The interface allows users to input threshold parameters and review the output for each set of chosen parameters.

Results

Algorithm development and validation

For the algorithm development, to determine the P₁ and P₂ thresholds, we detected and removed 1,399 atrial, 7,605 ventricular, and 2,426 AV pacing artifacts. Figure 3 shows a representative example of pacing artifacts removal from a VP VCG vector magnitude signal. Figure 4 shows another example where pacing artifacts were removed from an AVP VCG vector magnitude signal.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Example of pacing artifact removal from a ventricular-paced VCG. A) Original ventricular-paced VCG vector magnitude signal. B) Detected pacing artifacts (blue) and VCG signal (red). C) VCG vector magnitude signal after removal of pacing artifacts. The pacing spike onset (α_on) and offset (α_off)threshold values were 5 and 10 µV/ms, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Example of pacing spike removal from AV-paced VCG. A) Original AV-paced VCG vector magnitude signal. B) Detected pacing artifacts (blue) and VCG signal (red). C) VCG vector magnitude signal after removal of pacing artifacts. The corresponding value of α_on and α_off were 7.5 and 15.5 µV/ms, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Example of pacing artifacts removal from 12-lead ECG a) 12-lead ECG with pacing artifacts. b) 12-lead ECG trace after pacing artifacts removal.

From the validation dataset (n= 22 ECGs) the mean of 4 constraining parameter values were found as : mean maximum amplitude 146.36±76.36 μV, mean onset threshold (α_on) 13.06±6.21 μV/ms, mean offset threshold (α_off) 34.77±17.80 μV/ms, and mean maximum window size 27.23 ± 3.53 ms.

For validation of the automated algorithm, we analyzed 110,000 digital signal samples. Each ECG had 5000 samples. On average, a pacing artifact occupied 9.2±3.2 samples or 18.4±6.4 ms. Notably, the automated algorithm detected the presence of pacing artifact with 100% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 100% specificity.

Two-by-two table (Table 2) reports an agreement between the ground truth and automated detection of pacing artifacts for each sample of the digital ECG data. If the automated algorithm had made the determination randomly (but with probabilities equal to the overall proportions), we would expect the agreement on 94.43% of digital samples. In fact, they agreed on 98.81%. The amount of agreement indicated that we could reject the null hypothesis that they were making their determination randomly (P<0.00001). The kappa-statistic was 0.785, indicating substantial agreement.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2. Two by two table of a per-sample agreement between the ground trith and automated algorithm detection of pacing artifacts

The automated algorithm assigned a digital sample to pacing artifact with ROC AUC 0.871 (95% confidence interval 0.853-0.878), a sensitivity of 74.5%, and specificity of 99.6% and classified correctly 98.8% of digital samples.

Discussion

In this work, we developed and validated the semi-automated algorithm to detect and remove pacing artifacts from a digital ECG signal. The fully automated algorithm was perfectly 100% accurate in detection of a pacing artifact’s presence, and demonstrated 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the per-digital-sample automated detection of pacing artifacts, whereas a user-friendly interface allowed additional fine-tuning and quality control of the artifact removal.

Current ECG machines convert the analog ECG signal to digital at the front end.[16] Modern pacemaker’s stimulus output is frequently ≤ 0.25 ms in duration. Therefore, front-end sampling has to be ≥ 10,000 samples per second in order to detect and represent the pacemaker’s stimulus output. Furthermore, contemporary bipolar pacemaker’s stimulus output is usually small (2-4 Volt). The AHA/ACC/HRS/ISCE-endorsed recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the ECG[16] emphasized that ECG manufacturers should maintain the required front-end sampling rate for reliable and accurate detection of narrow pacemaker pulses but should not artificially increase pulses’ amplitude to avoid ECG’s morphology distortion.

However, in clinical settings, the information about the front-end sampling rate and an approach to handling the presentation of pacemaker stimulus outputs by a specific ECG recording machine is not readily available. In a nonselective CRT patient population, cardiologists observed visible ventricular pacing artifacts in 90% and visible atrial pacing artifacts – in 70% of patients with paced rhythm, whereas the automated ECG reading algorithm detected only 20% of patients with VP rhythm, and none with AP rhythm.[17]

In accordance with the growing population of patients with implanted pacemakers, ICD, and CRT devices, the list of meaningful interpretations of paced ECG morphology is expanding.

Acute myocardial infarction can manifest on ECG in patients with VP rhythm, although the sensitivity of acute myocardial infarction diagnosis on paced ECG is low.[18, 19] Left ventricular paced QRS width and the difference between biventricular-paced and pre-implant QRS width predict CRT response.[20] Our previous study showed that the addition of global electrical heterogeneity (GEH) ECG metrics to clinical risk factors of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is especially rewarding in the presence of paced rhythms.[12] In a subgroup of participants with VP ECG (Supplemental Table 13 in [12]), with the addition of GEH parameters, 33% of SCD victims were appropriately reclassified into a higher-risk category (from low to high risk). In contrast, only 10% were similarly appropriately reclassified amongst participants without a paced rhythm on ECG. Furthermore, in the VP rhythm subgroup, no SCD victims were inappropriately reclassified from high to low risk. The addition of GEH also improved SCD-specific risk prediction. The proportion of SCD decreased from 12% to 6% in the intermediate-risk group and increased from 15% to 18% in the high-risk group. The large prospective study of more than 20,000 participants with a median of 14 years of follow-up showed clinical usefulness of GEH measurements on VP ECG.[12]

Therefore, there is a growing need for reliable detection of pacing artifacts and accurate analysis of paced ECG morphology. Particularly, while the pacing artifact detection is important for the diagnosis of a paced rhythm, the pacing artifact itself should be removed from the analysis of the paced ECG waveform. As discussed above, an ideal solution endorsed by the AHA/ACC/HRS/ISCE involves the oversampling at the ECG front end at ≥10,000 Hz, saving pacing artifacts data on a unique marker-channel, and subsequent downsampling to 500-1000Hz for conventional ECG signal analysis and storage.[16] For example, the algorithm described by Polpetta and Banelli[21] follows the recommended approach and reports promising results.

Unfortunately, in clinical settings, it is usually unknown which front-end algorithm is utilized by a given ECG machine manufacturer. If an ECG has been recorded using unknown front-end characteristics, signal processing is the only option. A few previous fully automated algorithms addressed pacing artifacts detection. Helfenbein et al.[22] developed an algorithm for pacing artifacts detection on a commonly used ECG signal (sampling rate 500Hz, bandwidth 0.05-150 Hz), capitalizing on the fact that low-pass filtering broadens the pacing artifact width. The authors reported a sensitivity of 97.2% for detecting a paced rhythm,[22] which is lower than our results. Notably, the authors did not report an accuracy and algorithm performance per each sample of the digital ECG signal. Furthermore, widely used algorithms[22] are based on filtering the ECG signal, which distorts the beginning of the QRS and widens the QRS complex. The distortion of the QRS complex challenges the clinical use of paced QRS morphology measurements.[20]

Up-to-date, our semi-automated algorithm is the only available solution for careful and accurate pacing artifacts removal, as required for the analysis of QRS morphology. Allowing the user to select the dynamic thresholds from a range of values offers the required flexibility, considering different pacing pulse characteristics produced by a wide range of pacemakers’ manufacturers. Moreover, the user can monitor spike removal’s effects on the signal and choose an alternative set of thresholds until satisfactory results are achieved.

Conclusions

We developed a semi-automated algorithm to detect and remove pacing spike artifacts from digital ECG signal. The algorithm demonstrated its ability to detect and remove pacing spike artifacts with high sensitivity and specificity.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health (HL118277), Medical Research Foundation of Oregon and OHSU President Bridge funding to Tereshchenko.