论文标题

一种使用机器学习的新方法来整合ECG和门控SPECT MPI,以代表Vision-CRT进行心脏重新同步治疗决策支持

A new method using machine learning to integrate ECG and gated SPECT MPI for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Decision Support on behalf of the VISION-CRT

论文作者

Fernandes, Fernando de A., Larsen, Kristoffer, He, Zhuo, Nascimento, Erivelton, Peix, Amalia, Sha, Qiuying, Paez, Diana, Garcia, Ernest V., Zhou, Weihua, Mesquita, Claudio T

论文摘要

心脏衰竭的重要疗法已确定心脏重新同步治疗(CRT)。机械异位障碍有可能预测对CRT的响应者。这项研究的目的是报告整合ECG,门控SPECT MPI(GMP)和临床变量的机器学习(ML)模型的开发和验证,以预测患者对CRT的反应。该分析包括153名符合前瞻性队列研究标准的患者。这些变量用于建模CRT的预测方法。随访时,患者将LVEF> = 5%归类为响应者。在第二次分析中,将患者分类为超级反应器,以增加LVEF> = 15%。对于ML,应用了可变选择,并将微阵列(PAM)方法的预测分析用于响应建模,而天真的贝叶斯(NB)则用于超级反应。将它们与具有指南变量获得的模型进行了比较。 PAM的AUC为0.80,与指南变量为0.71的逻辑回归(p = 0.47)。灵敏度(0.86)和特异性(0.75)优于仅指南,灵敏度(0.72)和特异性(0.22)。具有指南变量的神经网络的表现优于NB(AUC = 0.87 vs 0.86; P = 0.88)。它的敏感性和特异性(分别为1.0和0.75)仅优于指南(分别为0.40和0.06)。与指南标准相比,ML方法趋向于改善CRT响应和超响应预测。 GMP在获取大多数参数中具有核心作用。需要进一步的研究来验证模型。

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been established as an important therapy for heart failure. Mechanical dyssynchrony has the potential to predict responders to CRT. The aim of this study was to report the development and the validation of machine learning (ML) models which integrates ECG, gated SPECT MPI (GMPS) and clinical variables to predict patients' response to CRT. This analysis included 153 patients who met criteria for CRT from a prospective cohort study. The variables were used to modeling predictive methods for CRT. Patients were classified as responders for an increase of LVEF>=5% at follow-up. In a second analysis, patients were classified super-responders for increase of LVEF>=15%. For ML, variable selection was applied, and Prediction Analysis of Microarrays (PAM) approach was used for response modeling while Naive Bayes (NB) was used for super-response. They were compared to models obtained with guideline variables. PAM had AUC of 0.80 against 0.71 of logistic regression with guideline variables (p = 0.47). The sensitivity (0.86) and specificity (0.75) were better than for guideline alone, sensitivity (0.72) and specificity (0.22). Neural network with guideline variables outperformed NB (AUC = 0.87 vs 0.86; p = 0.88). Its sensitivity and specificity (1.0 and 0.75, respectively) was better than guideline alone (0.40 and 0.06, respectively). Compared to guideline criteria, ML methods trended towards improved CRT response and super-response prediction. GMPS had a central role in the acquisition of most parameters. Further studies are needed to validate the models.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源