BACKGROUND: Prospective studies demonstrate that aggressive pharmacological therapy combined with pump speed optimization may result in myocardial recovery in larger numbers of patients supported with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). This study sought to determine whether the use of machine learning (ML) based models predict LVAD patients with myocardial recovery resulting in pump explant. METHODS: A total of 20 270 adult patients with a durable continuous-flow LVAD in the INTERMACS registry (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) were included in the study. Ninety-eight raw clinical variables were screened using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator for selection of features associated with LVAD-induced myocardial recovery. ML models were developed in the training data set (70%) and were assessed in the validation data set (30%) by receiver operating curve and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator identified 28 unique clinical features associated with LVAD-induced myocardial recovery, including age, cause of heart failure, psychosocial risk factors, laboratory values, cardiac rate and rhythm, and echocardiographic indices. ML models achieved area under the receiver operating curve of 0.813 to 0.824 in the validation data set outperforming logistic regression-based new INTERMACS recovery risk score (area under the receiver operating curve of 0.796) and previously established LVAD recovery risk scores (INTERMACS Cardiac Recovery Score and INTERMACS Recovery Score by Topkara et al) with area under the receiver operating curve of 0.744 and 0.748 (P<0.05). Patients who were predicted to recover by ML models demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of myocardial recovery resulting in LVAD explant in the validation cohort compared with those who were not predicted to recover (18.8% versus 2.6% at 4 years of pump support). CONCLUSIONS: ML can be a valuable tool to identify subsets of LVAD patients who may be more likely to respond to myocardial recovery protocols.
BACKGROUND: Prospective studies demonstrate that aggressive pharmacological therapy combined with pump speed optimization may result in myocardial recovery in larger numbers of patients supported with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). This study sought to determine whether the use of machine learning (ML) based models predict LVAD patients with myocardial recovery resulting in pump explant. METHODS: A total of 20 270 adult patients with a durable continuous-flow LVAD in the INTERMACS registry (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) were included in the study. Ninety-eight raw clinical variables were screened using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator for selection of features associated with LVAD-induced myocardial recovery. ML models were developed in the training data set (70%) and were assessed in the validation data set (30%) by receiver operating curve and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator identified 28 unique clinical features associated with LVAD-induced myocardial recovery, including age, cause of heart failure, psychosocial risk factors, laboratory values, cardiac rate and rhythm, and echocardiographic indices. ML models achieved area under the receiver operating curve of 0.813 to 0.824 in the validation data set outperforming logistic regression-based new INTERMACS recovery risk score (area under the receiver operating curve of 0.796) and previously established LVAD recovery risk scores (INTERMACS Cardiac Recovery Score and INTERMACS Recovery Score by Topkara et al) with area under the receiver operating curve of 0.744 and 0.748 (P<0.05). Patients who were predicted to recover by ML models demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of myocardial recovery resulting in LVAD explant in the validation cohort compared with those who were not predicted to recover (18.8% versus 2.6% at 4 years of pump support). CONCLUSIONS: ML can be a valuable tool to identify subsets of LVAD patients who may be more likely to respond to myocardial recovery protocols.
Authors: Veli K Topkara; A Reshad Garan; Barry Fine; Amandine F Godier-Furnémont; Alexander Breskin; Barbara Cagliostro; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Donna M Mancini; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Eric D Adler; Adriaan A Voors; Liviu Klein; Fima Macheret; Oscar O Braun; Marcus A Urey; Wenhong Zhu; Iziah Sama; Matevz Tadel; Claudio Campagnari; Barry Greenberg; Avi Yagil Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Stephen Pan; Baran Aksut; Omar E Wever-Pinzon; Shaline D Rao; Allison P Levin; Arthur R Garan; Justin A Fried; Koji Takeda; Takayama Hiroo; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Nir Uriel; Ulrich P Jorde; Donna M Mancini; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; Veli K Topkara Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Emma J Birks; Stavros G Drakos; Snehal R Patel; Brian D Lowes; Craig H Selzman; Randall C Starling; Jaimin Trivedi; Mark S Slaughter; Pavin Alturi; Daniel Goldstein; Simon Maybaum; John Y Um; Kenneth B Margulies; Josef Stehlik; Christopher Cunningham; David J Farrar; Jesus E Rame Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rohan Khera; Julian Haimovich; Nathan C Hurley; Robert McNamara; John A Spertus; Nihar Desai; John S Rumsfeld; Frederick A Masoudi; Chenxi Huang; Sharon-Lise Normand; Bobak J Mortazavi; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Sheojung Shin; Peter C Austin; Heather J Ross; Husam Abdel-Qadir; Cassandra Freitas; George Tomlinson; Davide Chicco; Meera Mahendiran; Patrick R Lawler; Filio Billia; Anthony Gramolini; Slava Epelman; Bo Wang; Douglas S Lee Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-11-17