Role for machine learning in sex-specific prediction of successful electrical cardioversion in atrial fibrillation?
Aged
Atrial Fibrillation
/ diagnosis
Clinical Decision Rules
Clinical Decision-Making
Electric Countershock
/ adverse effects
Female
Heart Disease Risk Factors
Humans
Machine Learning
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Selection
Predictive Value of Tests
Recovery of Function
Recurrence
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Sex Factors
Treatment Outcome
atrial fibrillation
gender
statistics
Journal
Open heart
ISSN: 2053-3624
Titre abrégé: Open Heart
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101631219
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
27
03
2020
revised:
11
05
2020
accepted:
11
05
2020
entrez:
23
6
2020
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Electrical cardioversion is frequently performed to restore sinus rhythm in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF recurs in many patients and identifying the patients who benefit from electrical cardioversion is difficult. The objective was to develop sex-specific prediction models for successful electrical cardioversion and assess the potential of machine learning methods in comparison with traditional logistic regression. In a retrospective cohort study, we examined several candidate predictors, including comorbidities, biochemistry, echocardiographic data, and medication. The outcome was successful cardioversion, defined as normal sinus rhythm immediately after the electrical cardioversion and no documented recurrence of AF within 3 months after. We used random forest and logistic regression models for sex-specific prediction. The cohort comprised 332 female and 790 male patients with persistent AF who underwent electrical cardioversion. Cardioversion was successful in 44.9% of the women and 49.9% of the men. The prediction errors of the models were high for both women (41.0% for machine learning and 48.8% for logistic regression) and men (46.0% for machine learning and 44.8% for logistic regression). Discrimination was modest for both machine learning (0.59 for women and 0.56 for men) and logistic regression models (0.60 for women and 0.59 for men), although the models were well calibrated. Sex-specific machine learning and logistic regression models showed modest predictive performance for successful electrical cardioversion. Identifying patients who will benefit from cardioversion remains challenging in clinical practice. The high recurrence rate calls for thoroughly informed shared decision-making for electrical cardioversion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32565431
pii: openhrt-2020-001297
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001297
pmc: PMC7307540
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: AEA: has been on the speaker bureaus for Astra Zenica, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer. GYHL: consultant for Bayer/Janssen, BMS/Pfizer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Verseon and Daiichi-Sankyo. Speaker for Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo. No fees are directly received personally. LT: is supported by a grant from AHA (18SFRN34150007). LF: has been an advisory board member for BMS, MSD and Pfizer in relation to non-interventional studies and has been on the speaker bureaus for Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Pfizer. DSM: has been on the speaker bureaus for Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Pfizer.
Références
Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37(38):2893-2962
pubmed: 27567408
Europace. 2018 Oct 1;20(10):1565-1565ao
pubmed: 29961863
Am Heart J. 2006 Jul;152(1):155.e9-13
pubmed: 16824847
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Oct 4;46(7):1298-306
pubmed: 16198847
Europace. 2017 Jun 1;19(6):921-928
pubmed: 27377074
Europace. 2019 Mar 1;21(3):366-376
pubmed: 30351414
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2014 Aug;15(8):636-41
pubmed: 24978663
Eur Heart J. 2019 Nov 14;40(43):3529-3543
pubmed: 31504423
Heart Rhythm. 2016 May;13(5):1020-1027
pubmed: 26776554
Clin Cardiol. 2018 Jun;41(6):862-870
pubmed: 29878481
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;110:12-22
pubmed: 30763612
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Sep 15;44(6):1276-82
pubmed: 15364332
JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Jun 1;1(3):282-91
pubmed: 27438106
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 1;119(5):749-752
pubmed: 28017305
Intern Med J. 2017 Mar;47(3):275-279
pubmed: 27860070
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 23;55(8):725-31
pubmed: 20170808
Europace. 2018 Jul 1;20(7):1086-1092
pubmed: 29016990
Biom J. 2014 Jul;56(4):588-93
pubmed: 24615669
N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5;347(23):1834-40
pubmed: 12466507
Clin Cardiol. 2014 Jun;37(6):381-5
pubmed: 24700327
Am Heart J. 2006 Feb;151(2):390-6
pubmed: 16442905
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 1;40(25):2058-2073
pubmed: 30815669
Europace. 2018 Jul 1;20(7):1078-1085
pubmed: 28655151
Am Heart J. 2005 Apr;149(4):645-9
pubmed: 15990747
Nat Biomed Eng. 2019 Nov;3(11):870-879
pubmed: 31427780
Eur Heart J. 2017 Feb 14;38(7):500-507
pubmed: 27252451
N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5;347(23):1825-33
pubmed: 12466506
Biom J. 2018 May;60(3):431-449
pubmed: 29292533