BACKGROUND: Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients can benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess left- and right-sided S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, use machine learning to predict S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, and transform 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to S-ICD 3-lead ECG, and vice versa. METHODS: ACHD outpatients (n = 101; age 42 ± 14 years; 52% female; 85% white; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 56% ± 9%) were enrolled in a prospective study. Supine and standing 12-lead ECG were recorded simultaneously with a right- and left-sided S-ICD 3-lead ECG. Peak-to-peak QRS and T amplitudes; RR, PR, QT, QTc, and QRS intervals; Tmax, and R/Tmax (31 predictor variables) were tested. Model selection, training, and testing were performed using supine ECG datasets. Validation was performed using standing ECG datasets and an out-of-sample non-ACHD population (n = 68; age 54 ± 16 years; 54% female; 94% white; LVEF 61% ± 8%). RESULTS: Forty percent of participants were ineligible for S-ICD. Tetralogy of Fallot patients passed right-sided screening (57%) more often than left-sided screening (21%; McNemar χ2P = .025). Female participants had greater odds of eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-21.7; P = .008). Validation of the ridge models was satisfactory for standing left-sided (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC AUC] 0.687; 95% CI 0.582-0.791) and right-sided (ROC AUC 0.655; 95% CI 0.549-0.762) S-ICD eligibility prediction. Validation of transformation matrices showed satisfactory agreement (<0.1 mV difference). CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the contemporary ACHD population is ineligible for S-ICD. The odds of S-ICD eligibility are greater for female than for male ACHD patients. Machine learning prediction of S-ICD eligibility can be used for screening of S-ICD candidates.
BACKGROUND: Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients can benefit from a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess left- and right-sided S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, use machine learning to predict S-ICD eligibility in ACHD patients, and transform 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to S-ICD 3-lead ECG, and vice versa. METHODS: ACHD outpatients (n = 101; age 42 ± 14 years; 52% female; 85% white; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 56% ± 9%) were enrolled in a prospective study. Supine and standing 12-lead ECG were recorded simultaneously with a right- and left-sided S-ICD 3-lead ECG. Peak-to-peak QRS and T amplitudes; RR, PR, QT, QTc, and QRS intervals; Tmax, and R/Tmax (31 predictor variables) were tested. Model selection, training, and testing were performed using supine ECG datasets. Validation was performed using standing ECG datasets and an out-of-sample non-ACHD population (n = 68; age 54 ± 16 years; 54% female; 94% white; LVEF 61% ± 8%). RESULTS: Forty percent of participants were ineligible for S-ICD. Tetralogy of Fallot patients passed right-sided screening (57%) more often than left-sided screening (21%; McNemar χ2P = .025). Female participants had greater odds of eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-21.7; P = .008). Validation of the ridge models was satisfactory for standing left-sided (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC AUC] 0.687; 95% CI 0.582-0.791) and right-sided (ROC AUC 0.655; 95% CI 0.549-0.762) S-ICD eligibility prediction. Validation of transformation matrices showed satisfactory agreement (<0.1 mV difference). CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the contemporary ACHD population is ineligible for S-ICD. The odds of S-ICD eligibility are greater for female than for male ACHDpatients. Machine learning prediction of S-ICD eligibility can be used for screening of S-ICD candidates.
Authors: Hideo Okamura; Christopher J McLeod; Christopher V DeSimone; Tracy L Webster; Crystal R Bonnichsen; Martha Grogan; Sabrina D Phillips; Heidi M Connolly; Naser M Ammash; Carole A Warnes; Paul A Friedman Journal: Circ J Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Pau Alonso; Joaquín Osca; Oscar Cano; Pedro Pimenta; Ana Andrés; Jaime Yagüe; José Millet; Joaquín Rueda; María José Sancho-Tello Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Craig S Parzynski; Paul D Varosy; Jordan M Prutkin; Kristen K Patton; Ali Mithani; Andrea M Russo; Jeptha P Curtis; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Markus Bettin; Dirk Dechering; Gerrit Frommeyer; Robert Larbig; Andreas Löher; Florian Reinke; Julia Köbe; Lars Eckardt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Zeliha Koyak; Louise Harris; Joris R de Groot; Candice K Silversides; Erwin N Oechslin; Berto J Bouma; Werner Budts; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Barbara J M Mulder Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mehmood Zeb; Nicholas Curzen; Gruschen Veldtman; Arthur Yue; Paul Roberts; David Wilson; John Morgan Journal: Europace Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Jason A Thomas; Erick Andres Perez-Alday; Christopher Hamilton; Muammar M Kabir; Eugene A Park; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Benjamin A D'Souza; Andrew E Epstein; Fermin C Garcia; Yuli Y Kim; Sharad C Agarwal; Peter H Belott; Martin C Burke; Angel R Leon; John M Morgan; Kristen K Patton; Maully Shah Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2016-05-18
Authors: Mohamed ElRefai; Mohamed Abouelasaad; Benedict M Wiles; Anthony J Dunn; Stefano Coniglio; Alain B Zemkoho; Paul R Roberts Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Julian D Fortune; Natalie E Coppa; Kazi T Haq; Hetal Patel; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 7.027