OBJECTIVE: To validate an artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) algorithm for the detection of preclinical left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in a large community-based cohort. METHODS: We identified a randomly selected community-based cohort of 2041 subjects age 45 years or older in Olmsted County, Minnesota. All participants underwent a study echocardiogram and ECG. We first assessed the performance of the AI-ECG to identify LVSD (ejection fraction ≤40%). After excluding participants with clinical heart failure, we further assessed the AI-ECG to detect preclinical LVSD among all patients (n=1996) and in a high-risk subgroup (n=1348). Next we modelled an imputed screening program for preclinical LVSD detection where a positive AI-ECG triggered an echocardiogram. Finally, we assessed the ability of the AI-ECG to predict future LVSD. Participants were enrolled between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2000; and LVSD surveillance was performed for 10 years after enrollment. RESULTS: For detection of LVSD in the total population (prevalence, 2.0%), the area under the receiver operating curve for AI-ECG was 0.97 (sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 92%); in the high-risk subgroup (prevalence 2.7%), the area under the curve was 0.97 (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 93%). In an imputed screening program, identification of one preclinical LSVD case would require 88.3 AI-ECGs and 8.7 echocardiograms in the total population and 65.7 AI-ECGs and 5.5 echocardiograms in the high-risk subgroup. The unadjusted hazard ratio for a positive AI-ECG for incident LVSD over 10 years was 2.31 (95% CI, 1.32 to 4.05; P=.004). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence-augmented ECG can identify preclinical LVSD in the community and warrants further study as a screening tool for preclinical LVSD.
OBJECTIVE: To validate an artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) algorithm for the detection of preclinical left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in a large community-based cohort. METHODS: We identified a randomly selected community-based cohort of 2041 subjects age 45 years or older in Olmsted County, Minnesota. All participants underwent a study echocardiogram and ECG. We first assessed the performance of the AI-ECG to identify LVSD (ejection fraction ≤40%). After excluding participants with clinical heart failure, we further assessed the AI-ECG to detect preclinical LVSD among all patients (n=1996) and in a high-risk subgroup (n=1348). Next we modelled an imputed screening program for preclinical LVSD detection where a positive AI-ECG triggered an echocardiogram. Finally, we assessed the ability of the AI-ECG to predict future LVSD. Participants were enrolled between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2000; and LVSD surveillance was performed for 10 years after enrollment. RESULTS: For detection of LVSD in the total population (prevalence, 2.0%), the area under the receiver operating curve for AI-ECG was 0.97 (sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 92%); in the high-risk subgroup (prevalence 2.7%), the area under the curve was 0.97 (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 93%). In an imputed screening program, identification of one preclinical LSVD case would require 88.3 AI-ECGs and 8.7 echocardiograms in the total population and 65.7 AI-ECGs and 5.5 echocardiograms in the high-risk subgroup. The unadjusted hazard ratio for a positive AI-ECG for incident LVSD over 10 years was 2.31 (95% CI, 1.32 to 4.05; P=.004). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence-augmented ECG can identify preclinical LVSD in the community and warrants further study as a screening tool for preclinical LVSD.