Using Machine-Learning for Prediction of the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The SMART-AV Study.
cardiac resynchronization therapy
machine learning
Journal
JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
ISSN: 2405-5018
Titre abrégé: JACC Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101656995
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
22
03
2021
revised:
17
06
2021
accepted:
17
06
2021
pubmed:
30
8
2021
medline:
3
2
2022
entrez:
29
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to apply machine learning (ML) to develop a prediction model for short-term cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response to identifying CRT candidates for early multidisciplinary CRT heart failure (HF) care. Multidisciplinary optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery can improve long-term CRT outcomes but requires substantial staff resources. Participants from the SMART-AV (SmartDelay-Determined AV Optimization: Comparison of AV Optimization Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [CRT]) trial (n = 741; age: 66 ± 11 years; 33% female; 100% New York Heart Association HF functional class III-IV; 100% ejection fraction ≤35%) were randomly split into training/testing (80%; n = 593) and validation (20%; n = 148) samples. Baseline clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and biomarker characteristics, and left ventricular (LV) lead position (43 variables) were included in 8 ML models (random forests, convolutional neural network, lasso, adaptive lasso, plugin lasso, elastic net, ridge, and logistic regression). A composite of freedom from death and HF hospitalization and a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume index at 6 months after CRT was the end point. The primary end point was met by 337 patients (45.5%). The adaptive lasso model was the most more accurate (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.759; 95% CI: 0.678-0.840), well calibrated, and parsimonious (19 predictors; nearly half potentially modifiable). Participants in the 5th quintile compared with those in the 1st quintile of the prediction model had 14-fold higher odds of composite CRT response (odds ratio: 14.0; 95% CI: 8.0-14.4). The model predicted CRT response with 70% accuracy, 70% sensitivity, and 70% specificity, and should be further validated in prospective studies. ML predicts short-term CRT response and thus may help with CRT procedure and early post-CRT care planning. (SmartDelay-Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison of AV Optimization Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [CRT] [SMART-AV]; NCT00677014).
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to apply machine learning (ML) to develop a prediction model for short-term cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response to identifying CRT candidates for early multidisciplinary CRT heart failure (HF) care.
BACKGROUND
Multidisciplinary optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery can improve long-term CRT outcomes but requires substantial staff resources.
METHODS
Participants from the SMART-AV (SmartDelay-Determined AV Optimization: Comparison of AV Optimization Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [CRT]) trial (n = 741; age: 66 ± 11 years; 33% female; 100% New York Heart Association HF functional class III-IV; 100% ejection fraction ≤35%) were randomly split into training/testing (80%; n = 593) and validation (20%; n = 148) samples. Baseline clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and biomarker characteristics, and left ventricular (LV) lead position (43 variables) were included in 8 ML models (random forests, convolutional neural network, lasso, adaptive lasso, plugin lasso, elastic net, ridge, and logistic regression). A composite of freedom from death and HF hospitalization and a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume index at 6 months after CRT was the end point.
RESULTS
The primary end point was met by 337 patients (45.5%). The adaptive lasso model was the most more accurate (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.759; 95% CI: 0.678-0.840), well calibrated, and parsimonious (19 predictors; nearly half potentially modifiable). Participants in the 5th quintile compared with those in the 1st quintile of the prediction model had 14-fold higher odds of composite CRT response (odds ratio: 14.0; 95% CI: 8.0-14.4). The model predicted CRT response with 70% accuracy, 70% sensitivity, and 70% specificity, and should be further validated in prospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
ML predicts short-term CRT response and thus may help with CRT procedure and early post-CRT care planning. (SmartDelay-Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison of AV Optimization Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [CRT] [SMART-AV]; NCT00677014).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34454883
pii: S2405-500X(21)00592-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.06.009
pmc: PMC8712355
mid: NIHMS1721475
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00677014']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1505-1515Subventions
Organisme : American Heart Association-American Stroke Association
ID : 17GRNT33670428
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL118277
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R56 HL118277
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (HL118277), the Medical Research Foundation of Oregon, and Oregon Health and Science University President Bridge funding (to Dr Tereshchenko). The SMART-AV trial was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Drs Stivland and Stein are employees of Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Références
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Aug;11(8):e006055
pubmed: 30354310
Heart Fail Clin. 2015 Apr;11(2):287-303
pubmed: 25834976
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Apr;17(4):615-620
pubmed: 31765805
Heart Rhythm. 2006 Nov;3(11):1285-92
pubmed: 17074633
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Nov;12(11):2256-62
pubmed: 26066291
J Electrocardiol. 2011 Nov-Dec;44(6):713-7
pubmed: 21944164
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;12(7):e007316
pubmed: 31216884
Circulation. 2010 Dec 21;122(25):2660-8
pubmed: 21098426
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 3;53(9):765-73
pubmed: 19245967
Eur Heart J. 2012 Sep;33(17):2181-8
pubmed: 22613342
Eur Heart J. 2020 May 7;41(18):1747-1756
pubmed: 31923316
JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Nov 1;4(11):1102-1111
pubmed: 31479100
Heart Rhythm. 2012 May;9(5):736-41
pubmed: 22182496
Circulation. 1987 Jul;76(1):44-51
pubmed: 3594774
Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128(16):1810-52
pubmed: 23741057
Circulation. 2015 Nov 17;132(20):1920-30
pubmed: 26572668
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Dec;12(12):2402-10
pubmed: 26272523
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Jan;11(1):e005499
pubmed: 29326129
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010 Jan;33(1):54-63
pubmed: 19821938
Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 Jan;21(1):74-85
pubmed: 30328654
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2018 Apr;11(4):e006290
pubmed: 29654133
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011 Mar;34(3):357-64
pubmed: 21091740
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 3;14(10):e0222397
pubmed: 31581234
Am J Kidney Dis. 2010 Apr;55(4):648-59
pubmed: 20189275
Circulation. 2014 Feb 11;129(6):704-10
pubmed: 24515956
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Aug 1;118(3):389-95
pubmed: 27265674
Am J Epidemiol. 1982 Jan;115(1):92-106
pubmed: 7055134
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Mar 1;35(3):569-82
pubmed: 10716457
Heart Rhythm. 2012 Oct;9(10):1737-53
pubmed: 22975672
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 19;14(9):e0222610
pubmed: 31536565
IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2015 Jul;14(5):505-12
pubmed: 25915962
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020 Aug;13(8):e009111
pubmed: 32809878
Heart Rhythm. 2019 May;16(5):743-753
pubmed: 30476543