Electrocardiographic Deep Learning for Predicting Post-Procedural Mortality

Background. Pre-operative risk assessments used in clinical practice are limited in their ability to identify risk for post-operative mortality. We hypothesize that electrocardiograms contain hidden risk markers that can help prognosticate post-operative mortality. Methods. In a derivation cohort of 45,969 pre-operative patients (age 59+- 19 years, 55 percent women), a deep learning algorithm was developed to leverage waveform signals from pre-operative ECGs to discriminate post-operative mortality. Model performance was assessed in a holdout internal test dataset and in two external hospital cohorts and compared with the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) score. Results. In the derivation cohort, there were 1,452 deaths. The algorithm discriminates mortality with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) surpassing the discrimination of the RCRI score with an AUC of 0.67 (CI 0.61-0.72) in the held out test cohort. Patients determined to be high risk by the deep learning model's risk prediction had an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 8.83 (5.57-13.20) for post-operative mortality as compared to an unadjusted OR of 2.08 (CI 0.77-3.50) for post-operative mortality for RCRI greater than 2. The deep learning algorithm performed similarly for patients undergoing cardiac surgery with an AUC of 0.85 (CI 0.77-0.92), non-cardiac surgery with an AUC of 0.83 (0.79-0.88), and catherization or endoscopy suite procedures with an AUC of 0.76 (0.72-0.81). The algorithm similarly discriminated risk for mortality in two separate external validation cohorts from independent healthcare systems with AUCs of 0.79 (0.75-0.83) and 0.75 (0.74-0.76) respectively. Conclusion. The findings demonstrate how a novel deep learning algorithm, applied to pre-operative ECGs, can improve discrimination of post-operative mortality

Variability independent of mean blood pressure as a real-world measure of cardiovascular risk

BackgroundIndividual-level blood pressure (BP) variability, independent of mean BP levels, has been associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in cohort studies and clinical trials using standardized BP measurements. The extent to which BP variability relates to cardiovascular risk in the real-world clinical practice setting is unclear. We sought to determine if BP variability in clinical practice is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes using clinically generated data from the electronic health record (EHR).MethodsWe identified 42,482 patients followed continuously at a single academic medical center in Southern California between 2013 and 2019 and calculated their systolic and diastolic BP variability independent of the mean (VIM) over the first 3 years of the study period. We then performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the association between VIM and both composite and individual outcomes of interest (incident myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and death).FindingsBoth systolic (HR, 95% CI 1.22, 1.17–1.28) and diastolic VIM (1.24, 1.19–1.30) were positively associated with the composite outcome, as well as all individual outcome measures. These findings were robust to stratification by age, sex and clinical comorbidities. In sensitivity analyses using a time-shifted follow-up period, VIM remained significantly associated with the composite outcome for both systolic (1.15, 1.11–1.20) and diastolic (1.18, 1.13–1.22) values.InterpretationVIM derived from clinically generated data remains associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and represents a risk marker beyond mean BP, including in important demographic and clinical subgroups. The demonstrated prognostic ability of VIM derived from non-standardized BP readings indicates the utility of this measure for risk stratification in a real-world practice setting, although residual confounding from unmeasured variables cannot be excluded.</p

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase&nbsp;1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation&nbsp;disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age&nbsp; 6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score&nbsp; 652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc&nbsp;= 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N&nbsp;= 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in&nbsp;Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in&nbsp;Asia&nbsp;and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701