Lichy Han1, Mariam Askari2, Russ B Altman3,4, Susan K Schmitt2, Jun Fan2, Jason P Bentley5, Sanjiv M Narayan1,6, Mintu P Turakhia2,7. 1. Biomedical Informatics Training Program (L.H., S.M.N.), Stanford University, CA. 2. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA (M.A., S.K.S., J.F., M.P.T.). 3. Department of Bioengineering (R.B.A.), Stanford University, CA. 4. Department of Genetics (R.B.A.), Stanford University, CA. 5. Quantitative Sciences Unit (J.P.B.), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA. 6. Department of Medicine (S.M.N.), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA. 7. Center for Digital Health (M.P.T.), Stanford University School of Medicine, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of stroke 5-fold and there is rising interest to determine if AF severity or burden can further risk stratify these patients, particularly for near-term events. Using continuous remote monitoring data from cardiac implantable electronic devices, we sought to evaluate if machine learned signatures of AF burden could provide prognostic information on near-term risk of stroke when compared to conventional risk scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified Veterans Health Administration serviced patients with cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring data and at least one day of device-registered AF. The first 30 days of remote monitoring in nonstroke controls were compared against the past 30 days of remote monitoring before stroke in cases. We trained 3 types of models on our data: (1) convolutional neural networks, (2) random forest, and (3) L1 regularized logistic regression (LASSO). We calculated the CHA2DS2-VASc score for each patient and compared its performance against machine learned indices based on AF burden in separate test cohorts. Finally, we investigated the effect of combining our AF burden models with CHA2DS2-VASc. We identified 3114 nonstroke controls and 71 stroke cases, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. Random forest performed the best in the test data set (area under the curve [AUC]=0.662) and convolutional neural network in the validation dataset (AUC=0.702), whereas CHA2DS2-VASc had an AUC of 0.5 or less in both data sets. Combining CHA2DS2-VASc with random forest and convolutional neural network yielded a validation AUC of 0.696 and test AUC of 0.634, yielding the highest average AUC on nontraining data. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study found that machine learning and ensemble methods that incorporate daily AF burden signature provided incremental prognostic value for risk stratification beyond CHA2DS2-VASc for near-term risk of stroke.
BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of stroke 5-fold and there is rising interest to determine if AF severity or burden can further risk stratify these patients, particularly for near-term events. Using continuous remote monitoring data from cardiac implantable electronic devices, we sought to evaluate if machine learned signatures of AF burden could provide prognostic information on near-term risk of stroke when compared to conventional risk scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified Veterans Health Administration serviced patients with cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring data and at least one day of device-registered AF. The first 30 days of remote monitoring in nonstroke controls were compared against the past 30 days of remote monitoring before stroke in cases. We trained 3 types of models on our data: (1) convolutional neural networks, (2) random forest, and (3) L1 regularized logistic regression (LASSO). We calculated the CHA2DS2-VASc score for each patient and compared its performance against machine learned indices based on AF burden in separate test cohorts. Finally, we investigated the effect of combining our AF burden models with CHA2DS2-VASc. We identified 3114 nonstroke controls and 71 stroke cases, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. Random forest performed the best in the test data set (area under the curve [AUC]=0.662) and convolutional neural network in the validation dataset (AUC=0.702), whereas CHA2DS2-VASc had an AUC of 0.5 or less in both data sets. Combining CHA2DS2-VASc with random forest and convolutional neural network yielded a validation AUC of 0.696 and test AUC of 0.634, yielding the highest average AUC on nontraining data. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study found that machine learning and ensemble methods that incorporate daily AF burden signature provided incremental prognostic value for risk stratification beyond CHA2DS2-VASc for near-term risk of stroke.
Authors: David T Martin; Malcolm M Bersohn; Albert L Waldo; Mark S Wathen; Wassim K Choucair; Gregory Y H Lip; John Ip; Richard Holcomb; Joseph G Akar; Jonathan L Halperin Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Michela Brambatti; Stuart J Connolly; Michael R Gold; Carlos A Morillo; Alessandro Capucci; Carmine Muto; Chu P Lau; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Stefan H Hohnloser; Mark Carlson; Eric Fain; Juliet Nakamya; Georges H Mairesse; Marta Halytska; Wei Q Deng; Carsten W Israel; Jeff S Healey Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rod Passman; Peter Leong-Sit; Adin-Cristian Andrei; Anna Huskin; Todd T Tomson; Richard Bernstein; Ethan Ellis; Jonathan W Waks; Peter Zimetbaum Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2015-11-23
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Salim S Virani; Clifton W Callaway; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Francesca N Delling; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Pamela L Lutsey; Jason S Mackey; David B Matchar; Kunihiro Matsushita; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Martin O'Flaherty; Latha P Palaniappan; Ambarish Pandey; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew D Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas Vanassche; Mandy N Lauw; John W Eikelboom; Jeff S Healey; Robert G Hart; Marco Alings; Alvaro Avezum; Rafael Díaz; Stefan H Hohnloser; Basil S Lewis; Olga Shestakovska; Jia Wang; Stuart J Connolly Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Steven Swiryn; Michael V Orlov; David G Benditt; John P DiMarco; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Edward Karst; Fujian Qu; Mara T Slawsky; Melanie Turkel; Albert L Waldo Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; Susanna R Stevens; YuChiao Chang; Daniel E Singer; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Alan S Go; Manesh R Patel; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Jonathan L Halperin; Günter Breithardt; Graeme J Hankey; Werner Hacke; Richard C Becker; Christopher C Nessel; Keith A A Fox; Robert M Califf Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Christopher D Anderson; Barbara Casadei; Lin Y Chen; Harry J G M Crijns; Ben Freedman; Mellanie True Hills; Jeff S Healey; Hooman Kamel; Dong-Yun Kim; Mark S Link; Renato D Lopes; Steven A Lubitz; David D McManus; Peter A Noseworthy; Marco V Perez; Jonathan P Piccini; Renate B Schnabel; Daniel E Singer; Robert G Tieleman; Mintu P Turakhia; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Lawton S Cooper; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Chayakrit Krittanawong; Albert J Rogers; Kipp W Johnson; Zhen Wang; Mintu P Turakhia; Jonathan L Halperin; Sanjiv M Narayan Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Amitava Banerjee; Suliang Chen; Ghazaleh Fatemifar; Mohamad Zeina; R Thomas Lumbers; Johanna Mielke; Simrat Gill; Dipak Kotecha; Daniel F Freitag; Spiros Denaxas; Harry Hemingway Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Jordi Heijman; Henry Sutanto; Harry J G M Crijns; Stanley Nattel; Natalia A Trayanova Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 10.787