This pilot study evaluates an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted electrocardiography (ECG) analysis system, QCG, to enhance urgent coronary angiography (CAG) decision-making for acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). We retrospectively analyzed 300 ED cases, categorized as non-coronary chest pain (Group 1), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without occlusive coronary artery disease (CAD) (Group 2), and ACS with occlusive CAD (Group 3). Six clinicians made urgent CAG decision using a conventional approach (clinical data and ECG) and a QCG-assisted approach (including QCG scores). The QCG-assisted approach improved correct CAG decisions in Group 2 (36.0% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.003) and Group 3 (85.3% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.017), with minimal impact in Group 1 (92.7% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.125). Diagnostic accuracy for ACS improved from 77% to 81% with QCG assistance and reached 82% with QCG alone, supporting AI's potential to enhance urgent CAG decisionmaking for ED chest pain cases.

Purpose: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for heart function evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but requires specific equipment and skilled operators. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application for estimating left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%] using electrocardiography (ECG) and tests its non-inferiority to POCUS. Materials and Methods: Patients (aged ≥20 years) were included if they had both a POCUS-based EF evaluation and an ECG within 24 hours of their ED visit between January and May 2022, along with formal echocardiography within 2 weeks before or after the visit. A mobile app (ECG Buddy, EB) estimated LVEF (EF from EB) and the risk of LV dysfunction (LV-Dysfunction score) from ECG waveforms, which were compared to NT-proBNP levels and POCUS-evaluated LVEF (EF from POCUS). A non-inferiority margin was set at an area under the curve (AUC) difference of 0.05. Results: Of the 181 patients included, 37 (20.4%) exhibited LV dysfunction. The AUCs for screening LV dysfunction using POCUS and NT-proBNP were 0.885 and 0.822, respectively. EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score outperformed NT-proBNP, with AUCs of 0.893 and 0.884, respectively (p=0.017 and p=0.030, respectively). EF from EB was non-inferior to EF from POCUS, while LV-Dysfunction score narrowly missed the mark. A subgroup analysis of sinus-origin rhythm ECGs supported the non-inferiority of both EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score to EF from POCUS. Conclusion A smartphone application that analyzes ECG image can screen for LV dysfunction with a level of accuracy comparable to that of POCUS.

This pilot study evaluates an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted electrocardiography (ECG) analysis system, QCG, to enhance urgent coronary angiography (CAG) decision-making for acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). We retrospectively analyzed 300 ED cases, categorized as non-coronary chest pain (Group 1), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without occlusive coronary artery disease (CAD) (Group 2), and ACS with occlusive CAD (Group 3). Six clinicians made urgent CAG decision using a conventional approach (clinical data and ECG) and a QCG-assisted approach (including QCG scores). The QCG-assisted approach improved correct CAG decisions in Group 2 (36.0% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.003) and Group 3 (85.3% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.017), with minimal impact in Group 1 (92.7% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.125). Diagnostic accuracy for ACS improved from 77% to 81% with QCG assistance and reached 82% with QCG alone, supporting AI's potential to enhance urgent CAG decisionmaking for ED chest pain cases.

Purpose: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for heart function evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but requires specific equipment and skilled operators. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application for estimating left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%] using electrocardiography (ECG) and tests its non-inferiority to POCUS. Materials and Methods: Patients (aged ≥20 years) were included if they had both a POCUS-based EF evaluation and an ECG within 24 hours of their ED visit between January and May 2022, along with formal echocardiography within 2 weeks before or after the visit. A mobile app (ECG Buddy, EB) estimated LVEF (EF from EB) and the risk of LV dysfunction (LV-Dysfunction score) from ECG waveforms, which were compared to NT-proBNP levels and POCUS-evaluated LVEF (EF from POCUS). A non-inferiority margin was set at an area under the curve (AUC) difference of 0.05. Results: Of the 181 patients included, 37 (20.4%) exhibited LV dysfunction. The AUCs for screening LV dysfunction using POCUS and NT-proBNP were 0.885 and 0.822, respectively. EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score outperformed NT-proBNP, with AUCs of 0.893 and 0.884, respectively (p=0.017 and p=0.030, respectively). EF from EB was non-inferior to EF from POCUS, while LV-Dysfunction score narrowly missed the mark. A subgroup analysis of sinus-origin rhythm ECGs supported the non-inferiority of both EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score to EF from POCUS. Conclusion A smartphone application that analyzes ECG image can screen for LV dysfunction with a level of accuracy comparable to that of POCUS.

Purpose: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for heart function evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but requires specific equipment and skilled operators. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application for estimating left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%] using electrocardiography (ECG) and tests its non-inferiority to POCUS. Materials and Methods: Patients (aged ≥20 years) were included if they had both a POCUS-based EF evaluation and an ECG within 24 hours of their ED visit between January and May 2022, along with formal echocardiography within 2 weeks before or after the visit. A mobile app (ECG Buddy, EB) estimated LVEF (EF from EB) and the risk of LV dysfunction (LV-Dysfunction score) from ECG waveforms, which were compared to NT-proBNP levels and POCUS-evaluated LVEF (EF from POCUS). A non-inferiority margin was set at an area under the curve (AUC) difference of 0.05. Results: Of the 181 patients included, 37 (20.4%) exhibited LV dysfunction. The AUCs for screening LV dysfunction using POCUS and NT-proBNP were 0.885 and 0.822, respectively. EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score outperformed NT-proBNP, with AUCs of 0.893 and 0.884, respectively (p=0.017 and p=0.030, respectively). EF from EB was non-inferior to EF from POCUS, while LV-Dysfunction score narrowly missed the mark. A subgroup analysis of sinus-origin rhythm ECGs supported the non-inferiority of both EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score to EF from POCUS. Conclusion A smartphone application that analyzes ECG image can screen for LV dysfunction with a level of accuracy comparable to that of POCUS.

Purpose: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for heart function evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but requires specific equipment and skilled operators. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application for estimating left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%] using electrocardiography (ECG) and tests its non-inferiority to POCUS. Materials and Methods: Patients (aged ≥20 years) were included if they had both a POCUS-based EF evaluation and an ECG within 24 hours of their ED visit between January and May 2022, along with formal echocardiography within 2 weeks before or after the visit. A mobile app (ECG Buddy, EB) estimated LVEF (EF from EB) and the risk of LV dysfunction (LV-Dysfunction score) from ECG waveforms, which were compared to NT-proBNP levels and POCUS-evaluated LVEF (EF from POCUS). A non-inferiority margin was set at an area under the curve (AUC) difference of 0.05. Results: Of the 181 patients included, 37 (20.4%) exhibited LV dysfunction. The AUCs for screening LV dysfunction using POCUS and NT-proBNP were 0.885 and 0.822, respectively. EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score outperformed NT-proBNP, with AUCs of 0.893 and 0.884, respectively (p=0.017 and p=0.030, respectively). EF from EB was non-inferior to EF from POCUS, while LV-Dysfunction score narrowly missed the mark. A subgroup analysis of sinus-origin rhythm ECGs supported the non-inferiority of both EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score to EF from POCUS. Conclusion A smartphone application that analyzes ECG image can screen for LV dysfunction with a level of accuracy comparable to that of POCUS.

Purpose: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used for heart function evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but requires specific equipment and skilled operators. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile application for estimating left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%] using electrocardiography (ECG) and tests its non-inferiority to POCUS. Materials and Methods: Patients (aged ≥20 years) were included if they had both a POCUS-based EF evaluation and an ECG within 24 hours of their ED visit between January and May 2022, along with formal echocardiography within 2 weeks before or after the visit. A mobile app (ECG Buddy, EB) estimated LVEF (EF from EB) and the risk of LV dysfunction (LV-Dysfunction score) from ECG waveforms, which were compared to NT-proBNP levels and POCUS-evaluated LVEF (EF from POCUS). A non-inferiority margin was set at an area under the curve (AUC) difference of 0.05. Results: Of the 181 patients included, 37 (20.4%) exhibited LV dysfunction. The AUCs for screening LV dysfunction using POCUS and NT-proBNP were 0.885 and 0.822, respectively. EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score outperformed NT-proBNP, with AUCs of 0.893 and 0.884, respectively (p=0.017 and p=0.030, respectively). EF from EB was non-inferior to EF from POCUS, while LV-Dysfunction score narrowly missed the mark. A subgroup analysis of sinus-origin rhythm ECGs supported the non-inferiority of both EF from EB and LV-Dysfunction score to EF from POCUS. Conclusion A smartphone application that analyzes ECG image can screen for LV dysfunction with a level of accuracy comparable to that of POCUS.

This pilot study evaluates an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted electrocardiography (ECG) analysis system, QCG, to enhance urgent coronary angiography (CAG) decision-making for acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). We retrospectively analyzed 300 ED cases, categorized as non-coronary chest pain (Group 1), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without occlusive coronary artery disease (CAD) (Group 2), and ACS with occlusive CAD (Group 3). Six clinicians made urgent CAG decision using a conventional approach (clinical data and ECG) and a QCG-assisted approach (including QCG scores). The QCG-assisted approach improved correct CAG decisions in Group 2 (36.0% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.003) and Group 3 (85.3% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.017), with minimal impact in Group 1 (92.7% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.125). Diagnostic accuracy for ACS improved from 77% to 81% with QCG assistance and reached 82% with QCG alone, supporting AI's potential to enhance urgent CAG decisionmaking for ED chest pain cases.

This pilot study evaluates an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted electrocardiography (ECG) analysis system, QCG, to enhance urgent coronary angiography (CAG) decision-making for acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). We retrospectively analyzed 300 ED cases, categorized as non-coronary chest pain (Group 1), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without occlusive coronary artery disease (CAD) (Group 2), and ACS with occlusive CAD (Group 3). Six clinicians made urgent CAG decision using a conventional approach (clinical data and ECG) and a QCG-assisted approach (including QCG scores). The QCG-assisted approach improved correct CAG decisions in Group 2 (36.0% vs. 45.3%, P = 0.003) and Group 3 (85.3% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.017), with minimal impact in Group 1 (92.7% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.125). Diagnostic accuracy for ACS improved from 77% to 81% with QCG assistance and reached 82% with QCG alone, supporting AI's potential to enhance urgent CAG decisionmaking for ED chest pain cases.

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes in patients who underwent endovascular treatments for type II endoleaks (T2ELs) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included patients who developed early T2EL after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Patients were divided into those who did and did not receive intervention for T2EL. Study outcomes included 10-year overall survival (OS), open conversion-free survival, and T2EL regression rates without open conversion. Results: Of the 385 patients who underwent EVAR between January 2006 and December 2016, 65 (16.9%) had early T2EL.Of these, 22 (33.8%) underwent T2EL intervention and 43 (66.2%) were treated conservatively. Eight (12.3%) of the 65 patients required open conversion, with no significant difference in open conversion-free survival between the two groups (P = 0.080). T2EL regression occurred in 16 of 62 patients (25.8%), with no difference in T2EL closure rates between the groups (P = 0.755). Analysis of the 31 patients with sac growth showed no significant between-group differences in 10-year OS, open conversion-free survival, and T2EL regression rates, regardless of T2EL intervention. Cox regression analysis identified that the development of other types of endoleak was the only risk factor for open conversion. Conclusion Interventions for T2EL did not improve OS rates, reduce open conversion rates, or increase T2EL closure rates, even in patients with sac growth. This study suggests that current T2EL interventions are not sufficiently effective, emphasizing the need to detect the development of other types of endoleak that may lead to rupture.