Manish Motwani1, Damini Dey1, Daniel S Berman1, Guido Germano1, Stephan Achenbach2, Mouaz H Al-Mallah3, Daniele Andreini4, Matthew J Budoff5, Filippo Cademartiri6,7, Tracy Q Callister8, Hyuk-Jae Chang9, Kavitha Chinnaiyan10, Benjamin J W Chow11, Ricardo C Cury12, Augustin Delago13, Millie Gomez14, Heidi Gransar1, Martin Hadamitzky15, Joerg Hausleiter16, Niree Hindoyan14, Gudrun Feuchtner17, Philipp A Kaufmann18, Yong-Jin Kim19, Jonathon Leipsic20, Fay Y Lin14, Erica Maffei21, Hugo Marques22, Gianluca Pontone23, Gilbert Raff10, Ronen Rubinshtein24, Leslee J Shaw25, Julia Stehli18, Todd C Villines26, Allison Dunning27, James K Min28, Piotr J Slomka1. 1. Departments of Imaging and Medicine and the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, and the Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Cardiology, Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany. 3. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, King AbdulAziz Cardiac Center Saudia Arabia. 4. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Medicine, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Montréal Heart Institute/Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. 7. Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Tennessee Heart and Vascular Institute, Hendersonville, TN, USA. 9. Division of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 10. William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oaks, MI, USA. 11. Department of Medicine and Radiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, ON, Canada. 12. Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, FL, USA. 13. Capitol Cardiology Associates, Albany, NY, USA. 14. Dalio Institute of Cardiovascular Imaging, Weill Cornell Medical College and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 15. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, German Heart Center Munich, Munich, Germany. 16. Medizinische Klinik I der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany. 17. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 18. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 19. Department of Medicine and Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 20. Department of Medical Imaging and Division of Cardiology, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 21. Montréal Heart Institute, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. 22. Department of Radiology, UNICA - Hospital da LUZ, Lisbon, Portugal. 23. Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 24. Department of Cardiology at the Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport School of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 25. Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 26. Department of Medicine, Walter Reed National Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 27. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 28. Departments of Radiology and Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, Dalio Institute of Cardiovascular Imaging, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Traditional prognostic risk assessment in patients undergoing non-invasive imaging is based upon a limited selection of clinical and imaging findings. Machine learning (ML) can consider a greater number and complexity of variables. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility and accuracy of ML to predict 5-year all-cause mortality (ACM) in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), and compared the performance to existing clinical or CCTA metrics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The analysis included 10 030 patients with suspected coronary artery disease and 5-year follow-up from the COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter registry. All patients underwent CCTA as their standard of care. Twenty-five clinical and 44 CCTA parameters were evaluated, including segment stenosis score (SSS), segment involvement score (SIS), modified Duke index (DI), number of segments with non-calcified, mixed or calcified plaques, age, sex, gender, standard cardiovascular risk factors, and Framingham risk score (FRS). Machine learning involved automated feature selection by information gain ranking, model building with a boosted ensemble algorithm, and 10-fold stratified cross-validation. Seven hundred and forty-five patients died during 5-year follow-up. Machine learning exhibited a higher area-under-curve compared with the FRS or CCTA severity scores alone (SSS, SIS, DI) for predicting all-cause mortality (ML: 0.79 vs. FRS: 0.61, SSS: 0.64, SIS: 0.64, DI: 0.62; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning combining clinical and CCTA data was found to predict 5-year ACM significantly better than existing clinical or CCTA metrics alone. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Traditional prognostic risk assessment in patients undergoing non-invasive imaging is based upon a limited selection of clinical and imaging findings. Machine learning (ML) can consider a greater number and complexity of variables. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility and accuracy of ML to predict 5-year all-cause mortality (ACM) in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA), and compared the performance to existing clinical or CCTA metrics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The analysis included 10 030 patients with suspected coronary artery disease and 5-year follow-up from the COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter registry. All patients underwent CCTA as their standard of care. Twenty-five clinical and 44 CCTA parameters were evaluated, including segment stenosis score (SSS), segment involvement score (SIS), modified Duke index (DI), number of segments with non-calcified, mixed or calcified plaques, age, sex, gender, standard cardiovascular risk factors, and Framingham risk score (FRS). Machine learning involved automated feature selection by information gain ranking, model building with a boosted ensemble algorithm, and 10-fold stratified cross-validation. Seven hundred and forty-five patients died during 5-year follow-up. Machine learning exhibited a higher area-under-curve compared with the FRS or CCTA severity scores alone (SSS, SIS, DI) for predicting all-cause mortality (ML: 0.79 vs. FRS: 0.61, SSS: 0.64, SIS: 0.64, DI: 0.62; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning combining clinical and CCTA data was found to predict 5-year ACM significantly better than existing clinical or CCTA metrics alone. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Benjamin J W Chow; Gary Small; Yeung Yam; Li Chen; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Cheng; Kavitha M Chinnaiyan; Augustin Delago; Allison Dunning; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Philipp Kaufmann; Fay Lin; Erica Maffei; Gilbert L Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines; James K Min Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: X Kang; D S Berman; H C Lewin; I Cohen; J D Friedman; G Germano; R Hachamovitch; L J Shaw Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: W Bob Meijboom; Carlos A G Van Mieghem; Niels van Pelt; Annick Weustink; Francesca Pugliese; Nico R Mollet; Eric Boersma; Eveline Regar; Robert J van Geuns; Peter J de Jaegere; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J de Feyter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-08-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin Hadamitzky; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Daniel Berman; Matthew Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Victor Cheng; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo Cury; Augustin Delago; Allison Dunning; Gudrun Feuchtner; Millie Gomez; Philipp Kaufmann; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon Leipsic; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; James K Min; Gil Raff; Leslee J Shaw; Todd C Villines; Jörg Hausleiter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Matthew Moll; Dandi Qiao; Elizabeth A Regan; Gary M Hunninghake; Barry J Make; Ruth Tal-Singer; Michael J McGeachie; Peter J Castaldi; Raul San Jose Estepar; George R Washko; James M Wells; David LaFon; Matthew Strand; Russell P Bowler; MeiLan K Han; Jorgen Vestbo; Bartolome Celli; Peter Calverley; James Crapo; Edwin K Silverman; Brian D Hobbs; Michael H Cho Journal: Chest Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco; Remco J J Knol; Carlos A Sanchez-Catasus; Octavio Martinez-Manzanera; Friso M van der Zant; Juhani Knuuti Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Chayakrit Krittanawong; Kipp W Johnson; Robert S Rosenson; Zhen Wang; Mehmet Aydar; Usman Baber; James K Min; W H Wilson Tang; Jonathan L Halperin; Sanjiv M Narayan Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Damini Dey; Piotr J Slomka; Paul Leeson; Dorin Comaniciu; Sirish Shrestha; Partho P Sengupta; Thomas H Marwick Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David Chen; Naveed Afzal; Sunghwan Sohn; Elizabeth B Habermann; James M Naessens; David W Larson; Hongfang Liu Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Julian Betancur; Frederic Commandeur; Mahsaw Motlagh; Tali Sharir; Andrew J Einstein; Sabahat Bokhari; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo Di Carli; Guido Germano; Yuka Otaki; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-14
Authors: Manar D Samad; Alvaro Ulloa; Gregory J Wehner; Linyuan Jing; Dustin Hartzel; Christopher W Good; Brent A Williams; Christopher M Haggerty; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-06-13