Cargando…

Prognostic Value of Machine Learning in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

(1) Background: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still experience many major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction, heart failure, kidney failure, coronary events, cerebrovascular events, and death. This retrospective study aims to assess the prognosti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao, Changhu, Guo, Yuan, Zhao, Kaixuan, Liu, Sha, He, Nongyue, He, Yi, Guo, Shuhong, Chen, Zhu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35200709
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9020056
Descripción
Sumario:(1) Background: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still experience many major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction, heart failure, kidney failure, coronary events, cerebrovascular events, and death. This retrospective study aims to assess the prognostic value of machine learning (ML) for the prediction of MACEs. (2) Methods: Five-hundred patients diagnosed with AMI and who had undergone successful percutaneous coronary intervention were included in the study. Logistic regression (LR) analysis was used to assess the relevance of MACEs and 24 selected clinical variables. Six ML models were developed with five-fold cross-validation in the training dataset and their ability to predict MACEs was compared to LR with the testing dataset. (3) Results: The MACE rate was calculated as 30.6% after a mean follow-up of 1.42 years. Killip classification (Killip IV vs. I class, odds ratio 4.386, 95% confidence interval 1.943–9.904), drug compliance (irregular vs. regular compliance, 3.06, 1.721–5.438), age (per year, 1.025, 1.006–1.044), and creatinine (1 µmol/L, 1.007, 1.002–1.012) and cholesterol levels (1 mmol/L, 0.708, 0.556–0.903) were independent predictors of MACEs. In the training dataset, the best performing model was the random forest (RDF) model with an area under the curve of (0.749, 0.644–0.853) and accuracy of (0.734, 0.647–0.820). In the testing dataset, the RDF showed the most significant survival difference (log-rank p = 0.017) in distinguishing patients with and without MACEs. (4) Conclusions: The RDF model has been identified as superior to other models for MACE prediction in this study. ML methods can be promising for improving optimal predictor selection and clinical outcomes in patients with AMI.