scholarly journals Development of an ensemble machine learning prognostic model to predict 60-day risk of major adverse cardiac events in adults with chest pain

Author(s):  
Chris J. Kennedy ◽  
Dustin G. Mark ◽  
Jie Huang ◽  
Mark J. van der Laan ◽  
Alan E. Hubbard ◽  
...  

Background: Chest pain is the second leading reason for emergency department (ED) visits and is commonly identified as a leading driver of low-value health care. Accurate identification of patients at low risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) is important to improve resource allocation and reduce over-treatment. Objectives: We sought to assess machine learning (ML) methods and electronic health record (EHR) covariate collection for MACE prediction. We aimed to maximize the pool of low-risk patients that are accurately predicted to have less than 0.5% MACE risk and may be eligible for reduced testing. Population Studied: 116,764 adult patients presenting with chest pain in the ED and evaluated for potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS). 60-day MACE rate was 1.9%. Methods: We evaluated ML algorithms (lasso, splines, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, Bayesian additive regression trees) and SuperLearner stacked ensembling. We tuned ML hyperparameters through nested ensembling, and imputed missing values with generalized low-rank models (GLRM). We benchmarked performance to key biomarkers, validated clinical risk scores, decision trees, and logistic regression. We explained the models through variable importance ranking and accumulated local effect visualization. Results: The best discrimination (area under the precision-recall [PR-AUC] and receiver operating characteristic [ROC-AUC] curves) was provided by SuperLearner ensembling (0.148, 0.867), followed by random forest (0.146, 0.862). Logistic regression (0.120, 0.842) and decision trees (0.094, 0.805) exhibited worse discrimination, as did risk scores [HEART (0.064, 0.765), EDACS (0.046, 0.733)] and biomarkers [serum troponin level (0.064, 0.708), electrocardiography (0.047, 0.686)]. The ensemble's risk estimates were miscalibrated by 0.2 percentage points. The ensemble accurately identified 50% of patients to be below a 0.5% 60-day MACE risk threshold. The most important predictors were age, peak troponin, HEART score, EDACS score, and electrocardiogram. GLRM imputation achieved 90% reduction in root mean-squared error compared to median-mode imputation. Conclusion: Use of ML algorithms, combined with broad predictor sets, improved MACE risk prediction compared to simpler alternatives, while providing calibrated predictions and interpretability. Standard risk scores may neglect important health information available in other characteristics and combined in nuanced ways via ML.

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-145
Author(s):  
Kok Siew Yean ◽  
Mahathar Bin Abd. Wahab ◽  
Mohd Idzwan Bin Zakaria

Background: Evaluation of chest pain patients in emergency departments to distinguish between high-risk patients who require admission and low-risk patients who can be managed as outpatients is a challenging task. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Observation Ward Short Stay Evaluation Service for Chest Pain Protocol to identify and safely discharge low-risk patients with low incidence of major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. Methods: This was a single center prospective observational study, conducted from 1 March 2016 to 31 August 2016 at the Emergency and Trauma Department, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur. Observation Ward Short Stay Evaluation Service for Chest Pain Protocol was used to evaluate patients presented with chest pain or angina equivalents. The components involved Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score, serial electrocardiograms, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and exercise treadmill test. Low-risk patients were patients with TIMI < 2, normal serial electrocardiogram, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T ≤ 14 ng/L, and negative exercise treadmill test. If anyone of the components was not fulfilled patients were considered as high risk, and they were either admitted or referred to clinic for further intervention. Low-risk patients were allowed for discharged. All patients were followed-up in 30 days for any incidence of major adverse cardiac events. Results: Totally, 174 patients were studied. Observation Ward Short Stay Evaluation Service for Chest Pain Protocol managed to discharge 102 (58.6%) patients, and 84 (82.4%) of them underwent exercise treadmill test. About 46 (54.8%) patients had negative exercise treadmill test, whereas 38 (45.2%) patients had either positive or inconclusive exercise treadmill test, and they were referred to physician clinic for further cardiac assessment. None of the patients with negative exercise treadmill test developed major adverse cardiac events in 30 days. The sensitivity and the negative predictive value (NPV) of Observation Ward Short Stay Evaluation Service for Chest Pain Protocol were both 100%. Conclusion: Observation Ward Short Stay Evaluation Service for Chest Pain Protocol can be applied in emergency departments to identify and safely discharge patients with low risk of major adverse cardiac events in 30 days.


Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (13) ◽  
pp. 977-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Stopyra ◽  
Anna Catherine Snavely ◽  
Brian Hiestand ◽  
Brian J Wells ◽  
Kristin Macfarlane Lenoir ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe History Electrocardiogram Age Risk factor Troponin (HEART) Pathway and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) are validated accelerated diagnostic pathways designed to risk stratify patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Data from large multisite prospective studies comparing these accelerated diagnostic pathways are limited.MethodsThe HEART Pathway Implementation is a prospective three-site cohort study, which accrued adults with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome. Physicians completed electronic health record HEART Pathway and EDACS risk assessments on participants. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days were determined using electronic health record, insurance claims and death index data. Test characteristics for detection of major adverse cardiac events were calculated for both accelerated diagnostic pathways and McNemar’s tests were used for comparisons.Results5799 patients presenting to the emergency department were accrued, of which HEART Pathway and EDACS assessments were completed on 4399. Major adverse cardiac events at 30 days occurred in 449/4399 (10.2%). The HEART Pathway identified 38.4% (95% CI 37.0% to 39.9%) of patients as low-risk compared with 58.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 59.6%) identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.9%) of patients classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway compared with 1.0% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.5%) of patients identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Thus, the HEART Pathway had a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.8%) for major adverse cardiac events compared with a negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.3%) for EDACS.ConclusionsEDACS identifies a larger proportion of patients as low-risk than the HEART Pathway, but has a higher missed major adverse cardiac events rate at 30 days. Physicians will need to consider their risk tolerance when deciding whether to adopt the HEART Pathway or EDACS accelerated diagnostic pathway.Trial registration numberNCT02056964.


IEEE Access ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 124076-124083
Author(s):  
Chieh-Chen Wu ◽  
Wen-Ding Hsu ◽  
Yao-Chin Wang ◽  
Woon-Man Kung ◽  
I-Shiang Tzeng ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Moumneh ◽  
Andrea Penaloza ◽  
Anda Cismas ◽  
Sandrine Charpentier ◽  
Thibault Schotté ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document