Back

Scalable Risk Stratification for Heart Failure Using Artificial Intelligence applied to 12-lead Electrocardiographic Images: A Multinational Study

Dhingra, L. S.; Aminorroaya, A.; Sangha, V.; Pedroso Camargos, A.; Asselbergs, F. W.; Brant, L. C. C.; Barreto, S. M.; Ribeiro, A. L. P.; Krumholz, H.; Oikonomou, E. K.; Khera, R.

2024-04-03 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2024.04.02.24305232 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCurrent risk stratification strategies for heart failure (HF) risk require either specific blood-based biomarkers or comprehensive clinical evaluation. In this study, we evaluated the use of artificial intelligence (AI) applied to images of electrocardiograms (ECGs) to predict HF risk. MethodsAcross multinational longitudinal cohorts in the integrated Yale New Haven Health System (YNHHS) and in population-based UK Biobank (UKB) and Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil), we identified individuals without HF at baseline. Incident HF was defined based on the first occurrence of an HF hospitalization. We evaluated an AI-ECG model that defines the cross-sectional probability of left ventricular dysfunction from a single image of a 12-lead ECG and its association with incident HF. We accounted for the competing risk of death using the Fine-Gray subdistribution model and evaluated the discrimination using Harrels c-statistic. The pooled cohort equations to prevent HF (PCP-HF) were used as a comparator for estimating incident HF risk. ResultsAmong 231,285 individuals at YNHHS, 4472 had a primary HF hospitalization over 4.5 years (IQR 2.5-6.6) of follow-up. In UKB and ELSA-Brasil, among 42,741 and 13,454 people, 46 and 31 developed HF over a follow-up of 3.1 (2.1-4.5) and 4.2 (3.7-4.5) years, respectively. A positive AI-ECG screen portended a 4-fold higher risk of incident HF among YNHHS patients (age-, sex-adjusted HR [aHR] 3.88 [95% CI, 3.63-4.14]). In UKB and ELSA-Brasil, a positive-screen ECG portended 13- and 24-fold higher hazard of incident HF, respectively (aHR: UKBB, 12.85 [6.87-24.02]; ELSA-Brasil, 23.50 [11.09-49.81]). The association was consistent after accounting for comorbidities and the competing risk of death. Higher model output probabilities were progressively associated with a higher risk for HF. The models discrimination for incident HF was 0.718 in YNHHS, 0.769 in UKB, and 0.810 in ELSA-Brasil. Across cohorts, incorporating model probability with PCP-HF yielded a significant improvement in discrimination over PCP-HF alone. ConclusionsAn AI model applied to images of 12-lead ECGs can identify those at elevated risk of HF across multinational cohorts. As a digital biomarker of HF risk that requires just an ECG image, this AI-ECG approach can enable scalable and efficient screening for HF risk.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.0%
2
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.3%
3
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
4
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.2%
5
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
6
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.6%
8
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
9
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
11
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.5%
13
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
14
Circulation: Heart Failure
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
15
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
16
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
21
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
25
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
26
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Nature Cardiovascular Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
28
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
29
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%