Matthew M Kalscheur1, Ryan T Kipp2, Matthew C Tattersall2, Chaoqun Mei2, Kevin A Buhr2, David L DeMets2, Michael E Field2, Lee L Eckhardt2, C David Page2. 1. From the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health (M.M.K., R.T.K., M.C.T., M.E.F., L.L.E.), Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics (C.M., K.A.B., D.L.D., C.D.P.), University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (C.M.), and Department of Computer Sciences (C.D.P.), University of Wisconsin-Madison. mmkalsch@medicine.wisc.edu. 2. From the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health (M.M.K., R.T.K., M.C.T., M.E.F., L.L.E.), Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics (C.M., K.A.B., D.L.D., C.D.P.), University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (C.M.), and Department of Computer Sciences (C.D.P.), University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular function and intraventricular conduction delay. However, individual outcomes vary significantly. This study sought to use a machine learning algorithm to develop a model to predict outcomes after CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Models were developed with machine learning algorithms to predict all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization at 12 months post-CRT in the COMPANION trial (Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure). The best performing model was developed with the random forest algorithm. The ability of this model to predict all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality alone was compared with discrimination obtained using a combination of bundle branch block morphology and QRS duration. In the 595 patients withCRT-defibrillator in the COMPANION trial, 105 deaths occurred (median follow-up, 15.7 months). The survival difference across subgroups differentiated by bundle branch block morphology and QRS duration did not reach significance (P=0.08). The random forest model produced quartiles of patients with an 8-fold difference in survival between those with the highest and lowest predicted probability for events (hazard ratio, 7.96; P<0.0001). The model also discriminated the risk of the composite end point of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization better than subgroups based on bundle branch block morphology and QRS duration. CONCLUSIONS: In the COMPANION trial, a machine learning algorithm produced a model that predicted clinical outcomes after CRT. Applied before device implant, this model may better differentiate outcomes over current clinical discriminators and improve shared decision-making with patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in heart failurepatients with reduced left ventricular function and intraventricular conduction delay. However, individual outcomes vary significantly. This study sought to use a machine learning algorithm to develop a model to predict outcomes after CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Models were developed with machine learning algorithms to predict all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization at 12 months post-CRT in the COMPANION trial (Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure). The best performing model was developed with the random forest algorithm. The ability of this model to predict all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality alone was compared with discrimination obtained using a combination of bundle branch block morphology and QRS duration. In the 595 patients with CRT-defibrillator in the COMPANION trial, 105 deaths occurred (median follow-up, 15.7 months). The survival difference across subgroups differentiated by bundle branch block morphology and QRS duration did not reach significance (P=0.08). The random forest model produced quartiles of patients with an 8-fold difference in survival between those with the highest and lowest predicted probability for events (hazard ratio, 7.96; P<0.0001). The model also discriminated the risk of the composite end point of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization better than subgroups based on bundle branch block morphology and QRS duration. CONCLUSIONS: In the COMPANION trial, a machine learning algorithm produced a model that predicted clinical outcomes after CRT. Applied before device implant, this model may better differentiate outcomes over current clinical discriminators and improve shared decision-making with patients.
Authors: Anthony S L Tang; George A Wells; Mario Talajic; Malcolm O Arnold; Robert Sheldon; Stuart Connolly; Stefan H Hohnloser; Graham Nichol; David H Birnie; John L Sapp; Raymond Yee; Jeffrey S Healey; Jean L Rouleau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Usama A Daimee; Arthur J Moss; Yitschak Biton; Scott D Solomon; Helmut U Klein; Scott McNitt; Bronislava Polonsky; Wojciech Zareba; Ilan Goldenberg; Valentina Kutyifa Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Haikun Bao; Erica S Spatz; Jeptha P Curtis; James P Daubert; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rutger J van Bommel; Carel Jan Willem Borleffs; Claudia Ypenburg; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Victoria Delgado; Matteo Bertini; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-08-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Christopher Winslow; David O Meltzer; Michael W Kattan; Dana P Edelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Robbert Zusterzeel; Jeptha P Curtis; Daniel A Caños; William E Sanders; Kimberly A Selzman; Ileana L Piña; Erica S Spatz; Haikun Bao; Angelo Ponirakis; Paul D Varosy; Frederick A Masoudi; David G Strauss Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Svati H Shah; Donna Arnett; Steven R Houser; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Calum MacRae; Seema Mital; Joseph Loscalzo; Jennifer L Hall Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brian W Patterson; Collin J Engstrom; Varun Sah; Maureen A Smith; Eneida A Mendonça; Michael S Pulia; Michael D Repplinger; Azita G Hamedani; David Page; Manish N Shah Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Albert K Feeny; Mina K Chung; Anant Madabhushi; Zachi I Attia; Maja Cikes; Marjan Firouznia; Paul A Friedman; Matthew M Kalscheur; Suraj Kapa; Sanjiv M Narayan; Peter A Noseworthy; Rod S Passman; Marco V Perez; Nicholas S Peters; Jonathan P Piccini; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Suma A Thomas; Natalia A Trayanova; Mintu P Turakhia; Paul J Wang Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-06
Authors: Subhi J Al'Aref; Gabriel Maliakal; Gurpreet Singh; Alexander R van Rosendael; Xiaoyue Ma; Zhuoran Xu; Omar Al Hussein Alawamlh; Benjamin Lee; Mohit Pandey; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Daniele Andreini; Jeroen J Bax; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo C Cury; Augustin DeLago; Gudrun Feuchtner; Martin Hadamitzky; Joerg Hausleiter; Philipp A Kaufmann; Yong-Jin Kim; Jonathon A Leipsic; Erica Maffei; Hugo Marques; Pedro de Araújo Gonçalves; Gianluca Pontone; Gilbert L Raff; Ronen Rubinshtein; Todd C Villines; Heidi Gransar; Yao Lu; Erica C Jones; Jessica M Peña; Fay Y Lin; James K Min; Leslee J Shaw Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Albert K Feeny; John Rickard; Divyang Patel; Saleem Toro; Kevin M Trulock; Carolyn J Park; Michael A LaBarbera; Niraj Varma; Mark J Niebauer; Sunil Sinha; Eiran Z Gorodeski; Richard A Grimm; Xinge Ji; John Barnard; Anant Madabhushi; David D Spragg; Mina K Chung Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2019-06-20
Authors: Albert K Feeny; John Rickard; Kevin M Trulock; Divyang Patel; Saleem Toro; Laurie Ann Moennich; Niraj Varma; Mark J Niebauer; Eiran Z Gorodeski; Richard A Grimm; John Barnard; Anant Madabhushi; Mina K Chung Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-06-14
Authors: Eric Munger; Harry Choi; Amit K Dey; Youssef A Elnabawi; Jacob W Groenendyk; Justin Rodante; Andrew Keel; Milena Aksentijevich; Aarthi S Reddy; Noor Khalil; Jenis Argueta-Amaya; Martin P Playford; Julie Erb-Alvarez; Xin Tian; Colin Wu; Johann E Gudjonsson; Lam C Tsoi; Mohsin Saleet Jafri; Veit Sandfort; Marcus Y Chen; Sanjiv J Shah; David A Bluemke; Benjamin Lockshin; Ahmed Hasan; Joel M Gelfand; Nehal N Mehta Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 11.527