ESC heart failure · 2024
Electrocardiograph analysis for risk assessment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A deep learning model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gao Zheng, Yang Yuqing, Yang Zhiqiang, Zhang Xinyue, Liu Chao
Аннотация
AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) requires an efficient screening method. We developed a deep learning model (DLM) to screen HFpEF risk using electrocardiograms (ECGs).
METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort study was conducted utilising data from Cohorts A and B. A convolutional neural network-long short-term memory (CNN-LSTM) DLM was employed. HFpEF risk was determined by left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) and clinical symptoms. The DLM was trained by ECGs. LVEDP for each patient was collected through invasive left ventricular catheterisation. Cohort A and B comprised data from individuals at high risk for HFpEF (LVEDP > 12 mmHg) and low risk for HFpEF (LVEDP ≤ 12 mmHg). The model was trained on Cohort A and prospectively validated on Cohort B.
RESULTS: A total of 238 patients underwent ECG and left ventricular catheterisation for model training in Cohort A, and 117 patients for validation in Cohort B. The DLM achieved 78% accuracy in assessing HFpEF risk in Cohort A, while in Cohort B, it demonstrated 78% accuracy, 71.9% specificity, and 71.7% sensitivity. In the validation Cohort B, the DLM-identified high-risk HFpEF group exhibited significantly higher prevalence of diabetes (22.03%-11.86%, P < 0.01), higher BMI indices (25.92-24.22 kg/cm2, P < 0.01), and lower usage history of calcium channel blockers (CCB) (11.76%-28.81%, P < 0.01) compared with the DLM-identified low-risk HFpEF group. Traditional HFpEF indicators, including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (22-20 pg/mL, P = 0.71) and E/E' (8.25-8.5, P = 0.66), did not exhibit significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The DLM offers an accurate, cost-effective tool for HFpEF risk assessment, potentially facilitating early detection and improved clinical management.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort study was conducted utilising data from Cohorts A and B. A convolutional neural network-long short-term memory (CNN-LSTM) DLM was employed. HFpEF risk was determined by left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) and clinical symptoms. The DLM was trained by ECGs. LVEDP for each patient was collected through invasive left ventricular catheterisation. Cohort A and B comprised data from individuals at high risk for HFpEF (LVEDP > 12 mmHg) and low risk for HFpEF (LVEDP ≤ 12 mmHg). The model was trained on Cohort A and prospectively validated on Cohort B.
RESULTS: A total of 238 patients underwent ECG and left ventricular catheterisation for model training in Cohort A, and 117 patients for validation in Cohort B. The DLM achieved 78% accuracy in assessing HFpEF risk in Cohort A, while in Cohort B, it demonstrated 78% accuracy, 71.9% specificity, and 71.7% sensitivity. In the validation Cohort B, the DLM-identified high-risk HFpEF group exhibited significantly higher prevalence of diabetes (22.03%-11.86%, P < 0.01), higher BMI indices (25.92-24.22 kg/cm2, P < 0.01), and lower usage history of calcium channel blockers (CCB) (11.76%-28.81%, P < 0.01) compared with the DLM-identified low-risk HFpEF group. Traditional HFpEF indicators, including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (22-20 pg/mL, P = 0.71) and E/E' (8.25-8.5, P = 0.66), did not exhibit significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The DLM offers an accurate, cost-effective tool for HFpEF risk assessment, potentially facilitating early detection and improved clinical management.