scholarly journals Using deep learning method to identify left ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiography

Author(s):  
Xiang Yu ◽  
Xinxia Yao ◽  
Bifeng Wu ◽  
Hong Zhou ◽  
Shudong Xia ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is an independent prognostic factor for cardiovascular events and it can be detected by echocardiography in the early stage. In this study, we aim to develop a semi-automatic diagnostic network based on deep learning algorithms to detect LVH. Methods We retrospectively collected 1610 transthoracic echocardiograms, included 724 patients [189 hypertensive heart disease (HHD), 218 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and 58 cardiac amyloidosis (CA), along with 259 controls]. The diagnosis of LVH was defined by two experienced clinicians. For the deep learning architecture, we introduced ResNet and U-net++ to complete classification and segmentation tasks respectively. The models were trained and validated independently. Then, we connected the best-performing models to form the final framework and tested its capabilities. Results In terms of individual networks, the view classification model produced AUC = 1.0. The AUC of the LVH detection model was 0.98 (95% CI 0.94–0.99), with corresponding sensitivity and specificity of 94.0% (95% CI 85.3–98.7%) and 91.6% (95% CI 84.6–96.1%) respectively. For etiology identification, the independent model yielded good results with AUC = 0.90 (95% CI 0.82–0.95) for HCM, AUC = 0.94 (95% CI 0.88–0.98) for CA, and AUC = 0.88 (95% CI 0.80–0.93) for HHD. Finally, our final integrated framework automatically classified four conditions (Normal, HCM, CA, and HHD), which achieved an average of AUC 0.91, with an average sensitivity and specificity of 83.7% and 90.0%. Conclusion Deep learning architecture has the ability to detect LVH and even distinguish the latent etiology of LVH.

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (suppl D) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Devereux ◽  
M. J. Koren ◽  
G. de Simone ◽  
P. M. Okin ◽  
P. Kligfield

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Jiang ◽  
Julia M Simkowski ◽  
Nadia El Hangouche ◽  
Jeesoo Lee ◽  
Milica Marion ◽  
...  

Introduction: Relative apical sparing of longitudinal strain (RALS, the ratio of apical strain vs the rest of the heart) on echocardiography has been found to have high sensitivity and specificity for differentiating cardiac amyloidosis (CA) from other causes of left ventricular hypertrophy. Previous studies have shown no significant difference between amyloid subtypes, systemic light-chain amyloidosis (AL) and transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR) Hypothesis: There will be a significant difference in sensitivity and specificity of RALS to detect CA across amyloid subtypes. Methods: A cohort of patients with either AL or ATTR amyloid was identified, with a control cohort of patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) of other etiologies. Speckle tracking echocardiography was performed on EchoPAC (GE Medical Systems) software to obtain values of basal, mid, and apical longitudinal strain for each patient; relative apical strain was then calculated. Results: The TTR group (n=22) was older (66.4±7.9, 76.6±11.6, p=0.001) and more likely to be female (p=0.009) than the AL group (n=30), both groups had similar rates of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and end stage renal disease. Echocardiographic markers of diastolic function were decreased in both groups; the AL group had decreased left ventricle end diastolic volume (60.9±25.5, 94.9±50.2, p=0.012) and mean wall thickness (1.4±0.3, 1.6±0.4 p=0.017). ROC analysis using a RALS cutoff of 2 to differentiate AL and ATTR from the LVH control group revealed similar specificity (AL 85%, ATTR 85%) and sensitivity (AL 40%, ATTR 50%). Difference in area-under-curve (AUC) was not significant (p=0.2) (figure). Conclusions: ATTR and AL amyloid have similar specificity, but ATTR has a trend towards improved sensitivity over AL for detection of CA using RALS with the previously validated threshold of 2. This might become significant with a larger sample, work that is currently on-going..


EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Raab ◽  
L Roten ◽  
M Branca ◽  
N Nozica ◽  
M Wilhelm ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Structural disarray of hypertrophied myocytes and interstitial fibrosis characterize hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). These morphological changes also affect atrial myocytes and, together with hemodynamic alterations because of HCM, may lead to atrial cardiomyopathy.  Purpose To investigate the incremental value of P-wave parameters to differentiate left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) because of HCM from LVH in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) and athletes heart.  Methods In a prospective study, we compared electrocardiographic (including signal-averaged ECG of the P wave) and echocardiographic data of patients with HCM, HHD and athletes heart. We developed a predictive model with a simple scoring system to identify HCM. Results We compared data of 27 patients with HCM (70% males, 49.8 ± 14.5 years), 324 patients with HHD (52% males, 74.8 ± 5.5 years), and 215 subjects with athletes heart (72% males, 42.3 ± 7.5). The table shows the significant differences among the 3 groups. We included the following parameters into a predictive score to differentiate HCM from other forms of LVH: QRS width (>88ms = 1 point), P-wave integral (>688µVs = 1 point) and septum thickness (>12mm = 2 points). A score >2 (Youden index 0.626) correctly classified HCM in 81% of the cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 82% an 81%, respectively.  Conclusion Differentiation of HCM from other forms of LVH is improved by including atrial parameters. A simple scoring system including septum thickness, QRS width and P wave integral allowed identification of patients with HCM with a sensitivity and specificity of >80%. This score needs to be validated prospectively. Table 1 HCM HHD Athletes P-value HCM vs HHD* HCM vs Athletes* 95%-CI P-value 95%-CI P-value P-wave duration [ms] 152.7 ± 25.8 143.9 ± 16.5 133.5 ± 14.2 <0.001 -16.9 -24.6 to -9.1 <0.001 -16.3 -22.7 to -9.9 <0.001 P-wave integral [µVs] 850.4 ± 272.4 672.0 ± 235.4 773.1 ± 260.1 <0.001 -198.6 -320.8 to -76.3 0.002 -68.2 -169.7 to 33.2 0.187 QRS [ms] 110.3 ± 27.3 96.9 ± 20.3 95.1 ± 9.8 <0.001 -16.4 -24.7 to -8.1 <0.001 -13.8 -20.8 to -6.9 <0.001 QTc [ms] 447.9 ± 27.2 438.6 ± 24.5 414.0 ± 22.9 <0.001 -21.1 -32.7 to -9.5 <0.001 -30.8 -40.5 to -21.2 <0.001 LVMMI [g/m2] 153.6 ± 55.5 133.5 ± 30.3 98.6 ± 19.7 <0.001 -15.3 -29.7 to -0.9 0.038 -56.1 -67.7 to -44.6 <0.001 IVS [ms] 16.8 ± 4.2 11.8 ± 2.2 10.3 ± 1.5 <0.001 -5.2 -6.3 to -4.1 <0.001 -6.4 -7.3 to -5.6 <0.001 LAVI [ml/m2] 43.2 ± 13.9 30.5 ± 9.7 30.8 ± 9.5 <0.001 -14.6 -20.0 to -9.3 <0.001 -12.2 -16.6 to -7.9 <0.001 The table shows the study result after univariate and multivariate (*; adjusting for age and sex) analysis. Abstract Figure 1


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 744-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijana Tadic ◽  
Cesare Cuspidi ◽  
Michele Bombelli ◽  
Guido Grassi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document