Literature DB >> 34080079

Potential of machine learning to predict early ischemic events after carotid endarterectomy or stenting: a comparison with surgeon predictions.

Kazuya Matsuo1, Atsushi Fujita2, Kohkichi Hosoda3, Jun Tanaka4, Taichiro Imahori5, Taiji Ishii6, Masaaki Kohta2, Kazuhiro Tanaka2, Yoichi Uozumi2, Hidehito Kimura2, Takashi Sasayama2, Eiji Kohmura2.   

Abstract

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recommended for high stroke-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis to reduce ischemic events. However, we often face difficulty in determining the best treatment strategy. We aimed to develop an accurate post-CEA/CAS outcome prediction model using machine learning that will serve as a basis for a new decision support tool for patient-specific treatment planning. Retrospectively collected data from 165 consecutive patients with carotid stenosis underwent CEA or CAS and were divided into training and test samples. The following five machine learning algorithms were tuned, and their predictive performance was evaluated by comparison with surgeon predictions: an artificial neural network, logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Seventeen clinical factors were introduced into the models. Outcome was defined as any ischemic stroke within 30 days after treatment including asymptomatic diffusion-weighted imaging abnormalities. The XGBoost model performed the best in the evaluation; its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy were 31.9%, 94.6%, 47.2%, and 86.2%, respectively. These statistical measures were comparable to those of surgeons. Internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and procedure (CEA or CAS) were the most contributing factors according to the XGBoost algorithm. We were able to develop a post-procedural outcome prediction model comparable to surgeons in performance. The accurate outcome prediction model will make it possible to make a more appropriate patient-specific selection of CEA or CAS for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carotid artery stenting; Carotid endarterectomy; Carotid stenosis; Decision support tool; Machine learning

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34080079     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-021-01573-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  31 in total

1.  The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST): stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid disease.

Authors:  Vito A Mantese; Carlos H Timaran; David Chiu; Richard J Begg; Thomas G Brott
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 7.914

2.  Artificial Intelligence Is Becoming Natural.

Authors:  Marta Koch
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 3.  Clinical considerations in the management of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Authors:  Philipp Taussky; Ricardo A Hanel; Fredric B Meyer
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.047

4.  Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Authors:  Walter N Kernan; Bruce Ovbiagele; Henry R Black; Dawn M Bravata; Marc I Chimowitz; Michael D Ezekowitz; Margaret C Fang; Marc Fisher; Karen L Furie; Donald V Heck; S Claiborne Clay Johnston; Scott E Kasner; Steven J Kittner; Pamela H Mitchell; Michael W Rich; DeJuran Richardson; Lee H Schwamm; John A Wilson
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Long-Term Results of Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Carotid-Artery Stenosis.

Authors:  Thomas G Brott; George Howard; Gary S Roubin; James F Meschia; Ariane Mackey; William Brooks; Wesley S Moore; Michael D Hill; Vito A Mantese; Wayne M Clark; Carlos H Timaran; Donald Heck; Pierre P Leimgruber; Alice J Sheffet; Virginia J Howard; Seemant Chaturvedi; Brajesh K Lal; Jenifer H Voeks; Robert W Hobson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial : surgical results in 1415 patients.

Authors:  G G Ferguson; M Eliasziw; H W Barr; G P Clagett; R W Barnes; M C Wallace; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; J W Finan; V C Hachinski; H J Barnett
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Cerebral oximetry does not correlate with electroencephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials in determining the need for shunting during carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Mark L Friedell; Jason M Clark; David A Graham; Michael R Isley; Xiao-Feng Zhang
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Authors:  Kenneth Rosenfield; Jon S Matsumura; Seemant Chaturvedi; Tom Riles; Gary M Ansel; D Chris Metzger; Lawrence Wechsler; Michael R Jaff; William Gray
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Predicting sample size required for classification performance.

Authors:  Rosa L Figueroa; Qing Zeng-Treitler; Sasikiran Kandula; Long H Ngo
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.