Bruna Gomes1, Maximilian Pilz2, Christoph Reich1, Florian Leuschner1, Mathias Konstandin1, Hugo A Katus1, Benjamin Meder3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Benjamin.meder@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 4. Informatics for Life, Heidelberg, Germany. Benjamin.meder@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 5. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Heidelberg, Germany. Benjamin.meder@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 6. Department of Genetics, Genome Technology Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Benjamin.meder@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, patient selection in TAVI is based upon a multidisciplinary heart team assessment of patient comorbidities and surgical risk stratification. In an era of increasing need for precision medicine and quickly expanding TAVI indications, machine learning has shown promise in making accurate predictions of clinical outcomes. This study aims to predict different intrahospital clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI using a machine learning-based approach. The main clinical outcomes include all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The dataset consists of 451 consecutive patients undergoing elective TAVI between February 2014 and June 2016. The applied machine learning methods were neural networks, support vector machines, and random forests. Their performance was evaluated using five-fold nested cross-validation. Considering all 83 features, the performance of all machine learning models in predicting all-cause intrahospital mortality (AUC 0.94-0.97) was significantly higher than both the STS risk score (AUC 0.64), the STS/ACC TAVR score (AUC 0.65), and all machine learning models using baseline characteristics only (AUC 0.72-0.82). Using an extreme boosting gradient, baseline troponin T was found to be the most important feature among all input variables. Overall, after feature selection, there was a slightly inferior performance. Stroke, major vascular complications, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantations could not be accurately predicted. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning has the potential to improve patient selection and risk management of interventional cardiovascular procedures, as it is capable of making superior predictions compared to current logistic risk scores.
BACKGROUND: Currently, patient selection in TAVI is based upon a multidisciplinary heart team assessment of patient comorbidities and surgical risk stratification. In an era of increasing need for precision medicine and quickly expanding TAVI indications, machine learning has shown promise in making accurate predictions of clinical outcomes. This study aims to predict different intrahospital clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI using a machine learning-based approach. The main clinical outcomes include all-cause mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The dataset consists of 451 consecutive patients undergoing elective TAVI between February 2014 and June 2016. The applied machine learning methods were neural networks, support vector machines, and random forests. Their performance was evaluated using five-fold nested cross-validation. Considering all 83 features, the performance of all machine learning models in predicting all-cause intrahospital mortality (AUC 0.94-0.97) was significantly higher than both the STS risk score (AUC 0.64), the STS/ACC TAVR score (AUC 0.65), and all machine learning models using baseline characteristics only (AUC 0.72-0.82). Using an extreme boosting gradient, baseline troponin T was found to be the most important feature among all input variables. Overall, after feature selection, there was a slightly inferior performance. Stroke, major vascular complications, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantations could not be accurately predicted. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning has the potential to improve patient selection and risk management of interventional cardiovascular procedures, as it is capable of making superior predictions compared to current logistic risk scores.
Authors: Olaf Wendler; Gerhard Schymik; Hendrik Treede; Helmut Baumgartner; Nicolas Dumonteil; Leo Ihlberg; Franz-Josef Neumann; Giuseppe Tarantini; José Luis Zamarano; Alec Vahanian Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Pieter Kappetein; Stuart J Head; Philippe Généreux; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Eugene H Blackstone; Thomas G Brott; David J Cohen; Donald E Cutlip; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Rebecca T Hahn; Ajay J Kirtane; Mitchell W Krucoff; Susheel Kodali; Michael J Mack; Roxana Mehran; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Pascal Vranckx; John G Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W Serruys; Martin B Leon Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Sean M O'Brien; David M Shahian; Giovanni Filardo; Victor A Ferraris; Constance K Haan; Jeffrey B Rich; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Elizabeth R DeLong; Cynthia M Shewan; Rachel S Dokholyan; Eric D Peterson; Fred H Edwards; Richard P Anderson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Richard G Jackson; Rashmi Patel; Nishamali Jayatilleke; Anna Kolliakou; Michael Ball; Genevieve Gorrell; Angus Roberts; Richard J Dobson; Robert Stewart Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Aaron J Masino; Mary Catherine Harris; Daniel Forsyth; Svetlana Ostapenko; Lakshmi Srinivasan; Christopher P Bonafide; Fran Balamuth; Melissa Schmatz; Robert W Grundmeier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pablo Juan-Salvadores; Cesar Veiga; Víctor Alfonso Jiménez Díaz; Alba Guitián González; Cristina Iglesia Carreño; Cristina Martínez Reglero; José Antonio Baz Alonso; Francisco Caamaño Isorna; Andrés Iñiguez Romo Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-06