4.6 Article

Deep-Learning Models for the Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic Dysfunction

期刊

JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 1887-1900

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.04.010

关键词

diastolic dysfunction; echocardiography; heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; deep learning

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1920920]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Big-Data Challenge: Creating New Paradigms for Heart Failure Research Award
  3. Hitachi Healthcare
  4. Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship
  5. Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program
  6. National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant [1R03AG06796 0-01]
  7. Applied Therapeu-tics
  8. Office Of The Director
  9. Office of Integrative Activities [1920920] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a DeepNN model to predict high- and low-risk phenogroups in a derivation cohort, with validation in external cohorts to assess its accuracy in predicting left ventricular filling pressure. Results showed that the model outperformed current guidelines in predicting elevated filling pressure and identified specific patient subgroups with adverse outcomes and potential spironolactone response.
OBJECTIVES The authors explored a deep neural network (DeepNN) model that integrates multidimensional echo cardiographic data to identify distinct patient subgroups with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND The clinical algorithms for phenotyping the severity of diastolic dysfunction in HFpEF remain imprecise. METHODS The authors developed a DeepNN model to predict high-and low-risk phenogroups in a derivation cohort (n =1,242). Model performance was first validated in 2 external cohorts to identify elevated left ventricular filling pressure (n = 84) and assess its prognostic value (n = 219) in patients with varying degrees of systolic and diastolic dysfunction. In 3 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded HFpEF trials, the clinical significance of the model was further validated by assessing the relationships of the phenogroups with adverse clinical outcomes (TOPCAT [Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function] trial, n = 518), cardiac biomarkers, and exercise parameters (NEAT-HFpEF [Nitrate's Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction] and RELAX-HF [Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sildenafil at Improving Health Outcomes and Exercise Ability in People With Diastolic Heart Failure] pooled cohort, n = 346). RESULTS The DeepNN model showed higher area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve than 2016 American Society of Echocardiography guideline grades for predicting elevated left ventricular filling pressure (0.88 vs. 0.67; p = 0.01). The high-risk (vs. low-risk) phenogroup showed higher rates of heart failure hospitalization and/or death, even after adjusting for global left ventricular and atrial longitudinal strain (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24 to 12.67; p = 0.021). Similarly, in the TOPCAT cohort, the high-risk (vs. low-risk) phenogroup showed higher rates of heart failure hospitalization or cardiac death (HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.22; p = 0.01) and higher event-free survival with spironolactone therapy (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.90; p = 0.01). In the pooled RELAX-HF/NEAT-HFpEF cohort, the high-risk (vs. low-risk) phenogroup had a higher burden of chronic myocardial injury (p < 0.001), neurohormonal activation (p < 0.001), and lower exercise capacity (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This publicly available DeepNN classifier can characterize the severity of diastolic dysfunction and identify a specific subgroup of patients with HFpEF who have elevated left ventricular filling pressures, biomarkers of myocardial injury and stress, and adverse events and those who are more likely to respond to spironolactone. (C) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据