Author: Jentzer, Jacob C; Kashou, Anthony H; Attia, Zachi I; Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco; Kapa, Suraj; Friedman, Paul A; Noseworthy, Peter A
Title: Left ventricular systolic dysfunction identification using artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram in cardiac intensive care unit patients. Cord-id: lw3bv2br Document date: 2020_11_2
ID: lw3bv2br
Snippet: BACKGROUND An artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) can identify left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). We examined the accuracy of AI ECG for identification of LVSD (defined as LVEF ≤40% by transthoracic echocardiogram [TTE]) in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients. METHOD We included unique Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 who underwent AI-ECG and TTE within 7 days, at least one of which was during hospitalization. Discrimination of th
Document: BACKGROUND An artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) can identify left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). We examined the accuracy of AI ECG for identification of LVSD (defined as LVEF ≤40% by transthoracic echocardiogram [TTE]) in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients. METHOD We included unique Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 who underwent AI-ECG and TTE within 7 days, at least one of which was during hospitalization. Discrimination of the AI-ECG for LVSD was determined using receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC) values. RESULTS We included 5680 patients with a mean age of 68 ± 15 years (37% females). Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was present in 55%. LVSD was present in 34% of patients (mean LVEF 48 ± 16%). The AI-ECG had an AUC of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.82-0.84) for discrimination of LVSD. Using the optimal cut-off, the AI-ECG had 73%, specificity 78%, negative predictive value 85% and overall accuracy 76% for LVSD. AUC values were higher for patients aged <70 years (0.85 versus 0.80), males (0.84 versus 0.79), patients without ACS (0.86 versus 0.80), and patients who did not undergo revascularization (0.84 versus 0.80). CONCLUSIONS The AI-ECG algorithm had very good discrimination for LVSD in this critically-ill CICU cohort with a high prevalence of LVSD. Performance was better in younger male patients and those without ACS, highlighting those CICU patients in whom screening for LVSD using AI ECG may be more effective. The AI-ECG might potentially be useful for identification of LVSD in resource-limited settings when TTE is unavailable.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- acs acute coronary syndrome present and acute coronary syndrome: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date