Ghorashi Seyyed Mojtaba, Fazeli Amir, Hedayat Behnam, Mokhtari Hamid, Jalali Arash, Ahmadi Pooria, Chalian Hamid, Bragazzi Nicola Luigi, Shirani Shapour, Omidi Negar
Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Biomedical Engineering and Physics Department, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Oct 26;9:994483. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.994483. eCollection 2022.
The study aims to compare the prognostic performance of conventional scoring systems to a machine learning (ML) model on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to discriminate between the patients with and without major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and to find the most important contributing factor of MACE.
From November to December 2019, 500 of 1586 CCTA scans were included and analyzed, then six conventional scores were calculated for each participant, and seven ML models were designed. Our study endpoints were all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, late coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure. Score performance was assessed by area under the curve (AUC) analysis.
Of 500 patients (mean age: 60 ± 10; 53.8% male subjects) referred for CCTA, 416 patients have met inclusion criteria, 46 patients with early (<90 days) cardiac evaluation (due to the inability to clarify the reason for the assessment, deterioration of the symptoms vs. the CCTA result), and 38 patients because of missed follow-up were not enrolled in the final analysis. Forty-six patients (11.0%) developed MACE within 20.5 ± 7.9 months of follow-up. Compared to conventional scores, ML models showed better performance, except only one model which is eXtreme Gradient Boosting had lower performance than conventional scoring systems (AUC:0.824, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.701-0.947). Between ML models, random forest, ensemble with generalized linear, and ensemble with naive Bayes were shown to have higher prognostic performance (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.99, AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98, and AUC: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.97), respectively. Coronary artery calcium score (CACS) had the highest correlation with MACE.
Compared to the conventional scoring system, ML models using CCTA scans show improved prognostic prediction for MACE. Anatomical features were more important than clinical characteristics.
本研究旨在比较传统评分系统与机器学习(ML)模型在冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)上对有或无主要不良心血管事件(MACE)患者的预后评估表现,并找出MACE的最重要影响因素。
2019年11月至12月,纳入并分析了1586例CCTA扫描中的500例,然后为每位参与者计算六个传统评分,并设计了七个ML模型。我们的研究终点为全因死亡率、非致命性心肌梗死、晚期冠状动脉血运重建以及因不稳定型心绞痛或心力衰竭住院。通过曲线下面积(AUC)分析评估评分表现。
在接受CCTA检查的500例患者(平均年龄:60±10岁;男性受试者占53.8%)中,416例患者符合纳入标准,46例患者因早期(<90天)心脏评估(由于无法明确评估原因、症状恶化与CCTA结果对比),38例患者因失访未纳入最终分析。46例患者(11.0%)在20.5±7.9个月的随访期内发生了MACE。与传统评分相比,ML模型表现更佳,但只有一个模型即极端梯度提升模型的表现低于传统评分系统(AUC:0.824,95%置信区间(CI):0.701-0.947)。在ML模型中,随机森林、广义线性模型集成和朴素贝叶斯模型集成分别显示出更高的预后表现(AUC:0.92,95%CI:0.85-0.99;AUC:0.90,95%CI:0.81-0.98;AUC:0.89,95%CI:0.82-0.97)。冠状动脉钙化评分(CACS)与MACE的相关性最高。
与传统评分系统相比,使用CCTA扫描的ML模型对MACE的预后预测有所改善。解剖学特征比临床特征更重要。