对稳定型胸痛算法机器学习指导测试方法的实际评估:一项跨国多队列研究

Evangelos K. Oikonomou, Arya Aminorroaya, L. Dhingra, Caitlin Partridge, Eric J Velazquez, N. Desai, H. Krumholz, Edward J Miller, R. Khera
{"title":"对稳定型胸痛算法机器学习指导测试方法的实际评估:一项跨国多队列研究","authors":"Evangelos K. Oikonomou, Arya Aminorroaya, L. Dhingra, Caitlin Partridge, Eric J Velazquez, N. Desai, H. Krumholz, Edward J Miller, R. Khera","doi":"10.1093/ehjdh/ztae023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n An algorithmic strategy for anatomical vs. functional testing in suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) (Anatomical vs. Stress teSting decIsion Support Tool; ASSIST) is associated with better outcomes than random selection. However, in the real world, this decision is rarely random. We explored the agreement between a provider-driven vs. simulated algorithmic approach to cardiac testing and its association with outcomes across multinational cohorts.\n \n \n \n In two cohorts of functional vs. anatomical testing in a US hospital health system [Yale; 2013–2023; n = 130 196 (97.0%) vs. n = 4020 (3.0%), respectively], and the UK Biobank [n = 3320 (85.1%) vs. n = 581 (14.9%), respectively], we examined outcomes stratified by agreement between the real-world and ASSIST-recommended strategies. Younger age, female sex, Black race, and diabetes history were independently associated with lower odds of ASSIST-aligned testing. Over a median of 4.9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.4–7.1) and 5.4 (IQR: 2.6–8.8) years, referral to the ASSIST-recommended strategy was associated with a lower risk of acute myocardial infarction or death (hazard ratioadjusted: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.85, P < 0.001 and 0.74 [95% CI 0.60–0.90], P = 0.003, respectively), an effect that remained significant across years, test types, and risk profiles. In post hoc analyses of anatomical-first testing in the Prospective Multicentre Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial, alignment with ASSIST was independently associated with a 17% and 30% higher risk of detecting CAD in any vessel or the left main artery/proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, respectively.\n \n \n \n In cohorts where historical practices largely favour functional testing, alignment with an algorithmic approach to cardiac testing defined by ASSIST was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes. This highlights the potential utility of a data-driven approach in the diagnostic management of CAD.\n","PeriodicalId":508387,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Digital Health","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world evaluation of an algorithmic machine-learning-guided testing approach in stable chest pain: a multinational, multicohort study\",\"authors\":\"Evangelos K. Oikonomou, Arya Aminorroaya, L. Dhingra, Caitlin Partridge, Eric J Velazquez, N. Desai, H. Krumholz, Edward J Miller, R. Khera\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjdh/ztae023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n An algorithmic strategy for anatomical vs. functional testing in suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) (Anatomical vs. Stress teSting decIsion Support Tool; ASSIST) is associated with better outcomes than random selection. However, in the real world, this decision is rarely random. We explored the agreement between a provider-driven vs. simulated algorithmic approach to cardiac testing and its association with outcomes across multinational cohorts.\\n \\n \\n \\n In two cohorts of functional vs. anatomical testing in a US hospital health system [Yale; 2013–2023; n = 130 196 (97.0%) vs. n = 4020 (3.0%), respectively], and the UK Biobank [n = 3320 (85.1%) vs. n = 581 (14.9%), respectively], we examined outcomes stratified by agreement between the real-world and ASSIST-recommended strategies. Younger age, female sex, Black race, and diabetes history were independently associated with lower odds of ASSIST-aligned testing. Over a median of 4.9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.4–7.1) and 5.4 (IQR: 2.6–8.8) years, referral to the ASSIST-recommended strategy was associated with a lower risk of acute myocardial infarction or death (hazard ratioadjusted: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.85, P < 0.001 and 0.74 [95% CI 0.60–0.90], P = 0.003, respectively), an effect that remained significant across years, test types, and risk profiles. In post hoc analyses of anatomical-first testing in the Prospective Multicentre Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial, alignment with ASSIST was independently associated with a 17% and 30% higher risk of detecting CAD in any vessel or the left main artery/proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, respectively.\\n \\n \\n \\n In cohorts where historical practices largely favour functional testing, alignment with an algorithmic approach to cardiac testing defined by ASSIST was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes. This highlights the potential utility of a data-driven approach in the diagnostic management of CAD.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":508387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Heart Journal - Digital Health\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Heart Journal - Digital Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztae023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Digital Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztae023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对疑似冠状动脉疾病(CAD)进行解剖与功能测试的算法策略(解剖与压力测试决策支持工具;ASSIST)比随机选择的结果更好。然而,在现实世界中,这种决定很少是随机的。我们在多国队列中探讨了提供者驱动与模拟算法心脏测试方法之间的一致性及其与预后的关系。 在美国医院卫生系统[耶鲁大学;2013-2023 年;n = 130 196 (97.0%) vs. n = 4020 (3.0%),]和英国生物库[n = 3320 (85.1%) vs. n = 581 (14.9%),]的功能测试与解剖测试的两个队列中,我们根据真实世界与 ASSIST 推荐策略之间的一致性对结果进行了分层研究。年龄较小、女性、黑人和糖尿病史与较低的 ASSIST 一致测试几率独立相关。在中位数为 4.9(四分位间距 [IQR]:2.4-7.1)年和 5.4(IQR:2.6-8.8)年期间,转诊至 ASSIST 推荐策略与急性心肌梗死或死亡风险较低有关(调整后的危险比:0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.85, P < 0.001 and 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.90], P = 0.003, respectively),这种效应在不同年份、检验类型和风险概况下都保持显著。在胸痛评估的前瞻性多中心成像研究(PROMISE)试验中,对解剖学优先检测进行的事后分析显示,与 ASSIST 保持一致与在任何血管或左主干/左前降支冠状动脉近端检测到 CAD 的风险分别高出 17% 和 30% 独立相关。 在历来偏重于功能检查的队列中,采用 ASSIST 所定义的心脏检查算法与较低的不良预后风险相关。这凸显了以数据为导向的方法在诊断管理 CAD 方面的潜在作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Real-world evaluation of an algorithmic machine-learning-guided testing approach in stable chest pain: a multinational, multicohort study
An algorithmic strategy for anatomical vs. functional testing in suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) (Anatomical vs. Stress teSting decIsion Support Tool; ASSIST) is associated with better outcomes than random selection. However, in the real world, this decision is rarely random. We explored the agreement between a provider-driven vs. simulated algorithmic approach to cardiac testing and its association with outcomes across multinational cohorts. In two cohorts of functional vs. anatomical testing in a US hospital health system [Yale; 2013–2023; n = 130 196 (97.0%) vs. n = 4020 (3.0%), respectively], and the UK Biobank [n = 3320 (85.1%) vs. n = 581 (14.9%), respectively], we examined outcomes stratified by agreement between the real-world and ASSIST-recommended strategies. Younger age, female sex, Black race, and diabetes history were independently associated with lower odds of ASSIST-aligned testing. Over a median of 4.9 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.4–7.1) and 5.4 (IQR: 2.6–8.8) years, referral to the ASSIST-recommended strategy was associated with a lower risk of acute myocardial infarction or death (hazard ratioadjusted: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.85, P < 0.001 and 0.74 [95% CI 0.60–0.90], P = 0.003, respectively), an effect that remained significant across years, test types, and risk profiles. In post hoc analyses of anatomical-first testing in the Prospective Multicentre Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial, alignment with ASSIST was independently associated with a 17% and 30% higher risk of detecting CAD in any vessel or the left main artery/proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, respectively. In cohorts where historical practices largely favour functional testing, alignment with an algorithmic approach to cardiac testing defined by ASSIST was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes. This highlights the potential utility of a data-driven approach in the diagnostic management of CAD.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Predicting early-stage coronary artery disease using machine learning and routine clinical biomarkers improved by augmented virtual data Why Thorough Open Data Descriptions Matters More Than Ever in the Age of AI: Opportunities for Cardiovascular Research Meet Key Digital Health thought leaders: Jagmeet (Jag) Singh Machine learning-based prediction of 1-year all-cause mortality in patients undergoing CRT implantation: Validation of the SEMMELWEIS-CRT score in the European CRT Survey I dataset Effect of Urban Environment on Cardiovascular Health: A Feasibility Pilot Study using Machine Learning to Predict Heart Rate Variability in Heart Failure Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1