Rushlow David R, Croghan Ivana T, Inselman Jonathan W, Thacher Tom D, Friedman Paul A, Yao Xiaoxi, Pellikka Patricia A, Lopez-Jimenez Francisco, Bernard Matthew E, Barry Barbara A, Attia Itzhak Z, Misra Artika, Foss Randy M, Molling Paul E, Rosas Steven L, Noseworthy Peter A
Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2022 Nov;97(11):2076-2085. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.04.008.
To compare the clinicians' characteristics of "high adopters" and "low adopters" of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) algorithm that alerted for possible low left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and the subsequent effectiveness of detecting patients with low EF.
Clinicians in 48 practice sites of a US Midwest health system were cluster-randomized by the care team to usual care or to receive a notification that suggested ordering an echocardiogram in patients flagged as potentially having low EF based on an AI-ECG algorithm. Enrollment was between June 26, 2019, and July 30, 2019; participation concluded on March 31, 2020. This report is focused on those clinicians randomized to receive the notification of the AI-ECG algorithm. At the patient level, data were analyzed for the proportion of patients with positive AI-ECG results. Adoption was defined as the clinician order of an echocardiogram after prompted by the alert.
A total of 165 clinicians and 11,573 patients were included in this analysis. Among patients with positive AI-ECG, high adopters (n=41) were twice as likely to diagnose patients with low EF (33.9%) vs low adopters, n=124, (16.9%); odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.17). High adopters were more often advanced practice providers (eg, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) vs physicians, Family Medicine vs Internal Medicine specialty, and tended to have less complex patients.
Clinicians who most frequently followed the recommendations of an AI tool were twice as likely to diagnose low EF. Those clinicians with less complex patients were more likely to be high adopters.
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04000087.
比较使用人工智能(AI)心电图(ECG)算法的“高采用者”和“低采用者”的临床医生特征,该算法可提示可能的左心室射血分数(EF)降低情况,以及随后检测EF降低患者的有效性。
美国中西部医疗系统48个执业地点的临床医生按护理团队进行整群随机分组,分为常规护理组或接收通知组,该通知建议对基于AI-ECG算法被标记为可能EF降低的患者进行超声心动图检查。入组时间为2019年6月26日至2019年7月30日;参与于2020年3月31日结束。本报告重点关注随机分组接受AI-ECG算法通知的临床医生。在患者层面,分析了AI-ECG结果为阳性的患者比例。采用率定义为临床医生在警报提示后开具超声心动图检查的医嘱。
本分析共纳入165名临床医生和11573名患者。在AI-ECG结果为阳性的患者中,高采用者(n = 41)诊断EF降低患者的可能性是低采用者(n = 124)的两倍(33.9%对16.9%);优势比为1.62;95%置信区间为1.21至2.17)。与医生相比,高采用者更常为高级执业人员(如执业护士和医师助理),家庭医学专业与内科专业相比,且患者病情往往不那么复杂。
最频繁遵循AI工具建议的临床医生诊断EF降低的可能性是其他人的两倍。那些患者病情不那么复杂的临床医生更有可能是高采用者。
Clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT04000087。