Cargando…

Electrocardiogram-based deep learning improves outcome prediction following cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS: This study aims to identify and visualize electrocardiogram (ECG) features using an explainable deep learning–based algorithm to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcome. Its performance is compared with current guideline ECG criteria and QRS(AREA). METHODS AND RESULTS: A deep l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wouters, Philippe C, van de Leur, Rutger R, Vessies, Melle B, van Stipdonk, Antonius M W, Ghossein, Mohammed A, Hassink, Rutger J, Doevendans, Pieter A, van der Harst, Pim, Maass, Alexander H, Prinzen, Frits W, Vernooy, Kevin, Meine, Mathias, van Es, René
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9940988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36342291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac617
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: This study aims to identify and visualize electrocardiogram (ECG) features using an explainable deep learning–based algorithm to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcome. Its performance is compared with current guideline ECG criteria and QRS(AREA). METHODS AND RESULTS: A deep learning algorithm, trained on 1.1 million ECGs from 251 473 patients, was used to compress the median beat ECG, thereby summarizing most ECG features into only 21 explainable factors (FactorECG). Pre-implantation ECGs of 1306 CRT patients from three academic centres were converted into their respective FactorECG. FactorECG predicted the combined clinical endpoint of death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplantation [c-statistic 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66–0.72], significantly outperforming QRS(AREA) and guideline ECG criteria [c-statistic 0.61 (95% CI 0.58–0.64) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.54–0.60), P < 0.001 for both]. The addition of 13 clinical variables was of limited added value for the FactorECG model when compared with QRS(AREA) (Δ c-statistic 0.03 vs. 0.10). FactorECG identified inferolateral T-wave inversion, smaller right precordial S- and T-wave amplitude, ventricular rate, and increased PR interval and P-wave duration to be important predictors for poor outcome. An online visualization tool was created to provide interactive visualizations (https://crt.ecgx.ai). CONCLUSION: Requiring only a standard 12-lead ECG, FactorECG held superior discriminative ability for the prediction of clinical outcome when compared with guideline criteria and QRS(AREA), without requiring additional clinical variables. End-to-end automated visualization of ECG features allows for an explainable algorithm, which may facilitate rapid uptake of this personalized decision-making tool in CRT.