{"title":"Machine Learning-Based Prediction of In-Stent Restenosis Risk Using Systemic Inflammation Aggregation Index Following Coronary Stent Placement","authors":"Ling Hou, Jinbo Zhao, Ting He, Ke Su, Yuanhong Li","doi":"10.2147/rmhp.s468235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Introduction:</strong> Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a significant global health challenge, with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being a primary revascularization method. In-stent restenosis (ISR) post-PCI, although reduced, continues to impact patient outcomes. Inflammation and platelet activation play key roles in ISR development, emphasizing the need for accurate risk assessment tools. The systemic inflammation aggregation index (AISI) has shown promise in predicting adverse outcomes in various conditions but has not been studied in relation to ISR.<br/><strong>Methods:</strong> A retrospective observational study included 1712 patients post-drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Data collected encompassed demographics, medical history, medication use, laboratory parameters, and angiographic details. AISI, calculated from specific blood cell counts, was evaluated alongside other variables using machine learning models, including random forest, Xgboost, elastic networks, logistic regression, and multilayer perceptron. The optimal model was selected based on performance metrics and further interpreted using variable importance analysis and the SHAP method.<br/><strong>Results:</strong> Our study revealed that ISR occurred in 25.8% of patients, with a range of demographic and clinical factors influencing the risk of its development. The random forest model emerged as the most adept in predicting ISR, and AISI featured prominently among the top variables affecting ISR prediction. Notably, higher AISI values were positively correlated with an elevated probability of ISR occurrence. Comparative evaluation and visual analysis of model performance, the random forest model demonstrates high reliability in predicting ISR, with specific metrics including an AUC of 0.9569, accuracy of 0.911, sensitivity of 0.855, PPV of 0.81, and NPV of 0.948.<br/><strong>Conclusion:</strong> AISI demonstrated itself as a significant independent risk factor for ISR following DES implantation, with an escalation in AISI levels indicating a heightened risk of ISR occurrence.<br/><br/><strong>Keywords:</strong> coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, Systemic inflammation aggregation index, machine learning models, In-stent restenosis<br/>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.s468235","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a significant global health challenge, with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being a primary revascularization method. In-stent restenosis (ISR) post-PCI, although reduced, continues to impact patient outcomes. Inflammation and platelet activation play key roles in ISR development, emphasizing the need for accurate risk assessment tools. The systemic inflammation aggregation index (AISI) has shown promise in predicting adverse outcomes in various conditions but has not been studied in relation to ISR. Methods: A retrospective observational study included 1712 patients post-drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Data collected encompassed demographics, medical history, medication use, laboratory parameters, and angiographic details. AISI, calculated from specific blood cell counts, was evaluated alongside other variables using machine learning models, including random forest, Xgboost, elastic networks, logistic regression, and multilayer perceptron. The optimal model was selected based on performance metrics and further interpreted using variable importance analysis and the SHAP method. Results: Our study revealed that ISR occurred in 25.8% of patients, with a range of demographic and clinical factors influencing the risk of its development. The random forest model emerged as the most adept in predicting ISR, and AISI featured prominently among the top variables affecting ISR prediction. Notably, higher AISI values were positively correlated with an elevated probability of ISR occurrence. Comparative evaluation and visual analysis of model performance, the random forest model demonstrates high reliability in predicting ISR, with specific metrics including an AUC of 0.9569, accuracy of 0.911, sensitivity of 0.855, PPV of 0.81, and NPV of 0.948. Conclusion: AISI demonstrated itself as a significant independent risk factor for ISR following DES implantation, with an escalation in AISI levels indicating a heightened risk of ISR occurrence.
期刊介绍:
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include:
Public and community health
Policy and law
Preventative and predictive healthcare
Risk and hazard management
Epidemiology, detection and screening
Lifestyle and diet modification
Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs
Health and safety and occupational health
Healthcare services provision
Health literacy and education
Advertising and promotion of health issues
Health economic evaluations and resource management
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.