Qualitative Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence–Based Clinical Decision Support System to Guide Rhythm Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Survey Study

BACKGROUND: Despite the numerous studies evaluating various rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF), determination of the optimal strategy in a single patient is often based on trial and error, with no one-size-fits-all approach based on international guidelines/recommendations. The decision, therefore, remains personal and lends itself well to help from a clinical decision support system, specifically one guided by artificial intelligence (AI). QRhythm utilizes a 2-stage machine learning (ML) model to identify the optimal rhythm management strategy in a given patient based on a set of clinical factors, in which the model first uses supervised learning to predict the actions of an expert clinician and identifies the best strategy through reinforcement learning to obtain the best clinical outcome—a composite of symptomatic recurrence, hospitalization, and stroke. OBJECTIVE: We qualitatively evaluated a novel, AI-based, clinical decision support system (CDSS) for AF rhythm management, called QRhythm, which uses both supervised and reinforcement learning to recommend either a rate control or one of 3 types of rhythm control strategies—external cardioversion, antiarrhythmic medication, or ablation—based on individual patient characteristics. METHODS: Thirty-three clinicians, including cardiology attendings and fellows and internal medicine attendings and residents, performed an assessment of QRhythm, followed by a survey to assess relative comfort with automated CDSS in rhythm management and to examine areas for future development. RESULTS: The 33 providers were surveyed with training levels ranging from resident to fellow to attending. Of the characteristics of the app surveyed, safety was most important to providers, with an average importance rating of 4.7 out of 5 (SD 0.72). This priority was followed by clinical integrity (a desire for the advice provided to make clinical sense; importance rating 4.5, SD 0.9), backward interpretability (transparency in the population used to create the algorithm; importance rating 4.3, SD 0.65), transparency of the algorithm (reasoning underlying the decisions made; importance rating 4.3, SD 0.88), and provider autonomy (the ability to challenge the decisions made by the model; importance rating 3.85, SD 0.83). Providers who used the app ranked the integrity of recommendations as their highest concern with ongoing clinical use of the model, followed by efficacy of the application and patient data security. Trust in the app varied; 1 (17%) provider responded that they somewhat disagreed with the statement, “I trust the recommendations provided by the QRhythm app,” 2 (33%) providers responded with neutrality to the statement, and 3 (50%) somewhat agreed with the statement. CONCLUSIONS: Safety of ML applications was the highest priority of the providers surveyed, and trust of such models remains varied. Widespread clinical acceptance of ML in health care is dependent on how much providers trust the algorithms. Building this trust involves ensuring transparency and interpretability of the model.