Electrocardiographic deep learning for predicting post-procedural mortality: a model development and validation study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative risk assessments used in clinical practice are insufficient in their ability to identify risk for postoperative mortality. Deep-learning analysis of electrocardiography can identify hidden risk markers that can help to prognosticate postoperative mortality. We aimed to develop a prognostic model that accurately predicts postoperative mortality in patients undergoing medical procedures and who had received preoperative electrocardiographic diagnostic testing.

METHODS

In a derivation cohort of preoperative patients with available electrocardiograms (ECGs) from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles, CA, USA) between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019, a deep-learning algorithm was developed to leverage waveform signals to discriminate postoperative mortality. We randomly split patients (8:1:1) into subsets for training, internal validation, and final algorithm test analyses. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values in the hold-out test dataset and in two external hospital cohorts and compared with the established Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) score. The primary outcome was post-procedural mortality across three health-care systems.

FINDINGS

45 969 patients had a complete ECG waveform image available for at least one 12-lead ECG performed within the 30 days before the procedure date (59 975 inpatient procedures and 112 794 ECGs): 36 839 patients in the training dataset, 4549 in the internal validation dataset, and 4581 in the internal test dataset. In the held-out internal test cohort, the algorithm discriminates mortality with an AUC value of 0·83 (95% CI 0·79-0·87), surpassing the discrimination of the RCRI score with an AUC of 0·67 (0·61-0·72). The algorithm similarly discriminated risk for mortality in two independent US health-care systems, with AUCs of 0·79 (0·75-0·83) and 0·75 (0·74-0·76), respectively. Patients determined to be high risk by the deep-learning model had an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 8·83 (5·57-13·20) for postoperative mortality compared with an unadjusted OR of 2·08 (0·77-3·50) for postoperative mortality for RCRI scores of more than 2. The deep-learning algorithm performed similarly for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (AUC 0·85 [0·77-0·92]), non-cardiac surgery (AUC 0·83 [0·79-0·88]), and catheterisation or endoscopy suite procedures (AUC 0·76 [0·72-0·81]).

INTERPRETATION

A deep-learning algorithm interpreting preoperative ECGs can improve discrimination of postoperative mortality. The deep-learning algorithm worked equally well for risk stratification of cardiac surgeries, non-cardiac surgeries, and catheterisation laboratory procedures, and was validated in three independent health-care systems. This algorithm can provide additional information to clinicians making the decision to perform medical procedures and stratify the risk of future complications.

FUNDING

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Deep learning-based electrocardiographic screening for chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Undiagnosed chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common and usually asymptomatic disorder that causes a high burden of morbidity and early mortality worldwide. We developed a deep learning model for CKD screening from routinely acquired ECGs.

METHODS

We collected data from a primary cohort with 111,370 patients which had 247,655 ECGs between 2005 and 2019. Using this data, we developed, trained, validated, and tested a deep learning model to predict whether an ECG was taken within one year of the patient receiving a CKD diagnosis. The model was additionally validated using an external cohort from another healthcare system which had 312,145 patients with 896,620 ECGs between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Using 12-lead ECG waveforms, our deep learning algorithm achieves discrimination for CKD of any stage with an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI 0.760-0.773) in a held-out test set and an AUC of 0.709 (0.708-0.710) in the external cohort. Our 12-lead ECG-based model performance is consistent across the severity of CKD, with an AUC of 0.753 (0.735-0.770) for mild CKD, AUC of 0.759 (0.750-0.767) for moderate-severe CKD, and an AUC of 0.783 (0.773-0.793) for ESRD. In patients under 60 years old, our model achieves high performance in detecting any stage CKD with both 12-lead (AUC 0.843 [0.836-0.852]) and 1-lead ECG waveform (0.824 [0.815-0.832]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our deep learning algorithm is able to detect CKD using ECG waveforms, with stronger performance in younger patients and more severe CKD stages. This ECG algorithm has the potential to augment screening for CKD.

Blinded, randomized trial of sonographer versus AI cardiac function assessment

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been developed for echocardiography1-3, although it has not yet been tested with blinding and randomization. Here we designed a blinded, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05140642; no outside funding) of AI versus sonographer initial assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to evaluate the impact of AI in the interpretation workflow. The primary end point was the change in the LVEF between initial AI or sonographer assessment and final cardiologist assessment, evaluated by the proportion of studies with substantial change (more than 5% change). From 3,769 echocardiographic studies screened, 274 studies were excluded owing to poor image quality. The proportion of studies substantially changed was 16.8% in the AI group and 27.2% in the sonographer group (difference of -10.4%, 95% confidence interval: -13.2% to -7.7%, P < 0.001 for non-inferiority, P < 0.001 for superiority). The mean absolute difference between final cardiologist assessment and independent previous cardiologist assessment was 6.29% in the AI group and 7.23% in the sonographer group (difference of -0.96%, 95% confidence interval: -1.34% to -0.54%, P < 0.001 for superiority). The AI-guided workflow saved time for both sonographers and cardiologists, and cardiologists were not able to distinguish between the initial assessments by AI versus the sonographer (blinding index of 0.088). For patients undergoing echocardiographic quantification of cardiac function, initial assessment of LVEF by AI was non-inferior to assessment by sonographers.