RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Risk prediction with office and ambulatory blood pressure using artificial intelligence
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.01.17.20017798
DO 10.1101/2020.01.17.20017798
A1 Pedro Guimarães
A1 Andreas Keller
A1 Michael Böhm
A1 Lucas Lauder
A1 José L. Ayala
A1 José R. Banegas
A1 Alejandro de la Sierra
A1 Ernest Vinyoles
A1 Manuel Gorostidi
A1 Julián Segura
A1 Gema Ruiz-Hurtado
A1 Luis M. Ruilope
A1 Felix Mahfoud
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/01/18/2020.01.17.20017798.abstract
AB Background To develop and validate a novel, machine learning-derived model for prediction of cardiovascular (CV) mortality risk using office (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), to compare its performance with existing risk scores, and to assess the possibility of predicting ABP phenotypes (i.e. white-coat, ambulatory and masked hypertension) utilizing clinical variables.Methods Using data from 63,910 patients enrolled in the Spanish ABP monitoring registry, machine-learning approaches (logistic regression, support vector machine, gradient boosted decision trees, and deep neural networks) and stepwise forward feature selection were used for the classification of the data.Results Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 3,808 deaths occurred from which 1,295 were from CV causes. The performance for all tested classifiers increased while adding up to 10 features and converged thereafter. For the prediction of CV mortality, deep neural networks yielded the highest clinical performance. The novel mortality prediction models using OBP (CV-MortalityOBP) and ABP (CV-MortalityABP) outperformed all other risk scores. The area under the curve (AUC) achieved by the novel approach, using OBP variables only, was already significantly higher when compared with the AUC of Framingham score (0.685 vs 0.659, p = 1.97×10−22), the SCORE (0.679 vs 0.613, p = 6.21×10−22), and ASCVD (0.722 vs 0.639, p = 8.03×10−30) risk score. However, prediction of CV mortality with ABP instead of OBP data led to a significant increase in AUC (0.781 vs 0.752, p = 1.73×10−42), accuracy, balanced accuracy and sensitivity. The sensitivity and specificity for detection of ambulatory, masked, and white-coat hypertension ranged between 0.653-0.661 and 0.573-0.651, respectively.Conclusion We developed a novel risk calculator for CV death using artificial intelligence based on a large cohort of patients included in the Spanish ABP monitoring registry. The receiver operating characteristic curves for CV-MortalityOBP and CV-MortalityABP with deep neural networks models outperformed all other risk metrics. Prediction of CV mortality using ABP data led to a significant increase in performance metrics. The prediction of ambulatory phenotypes using clinical characteristics, including OBP, was limited.Competing Interest StatementFelix Mahfoud received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Recor, Berlin Chemie and Boehringer Ingelheim, and is supported Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219). Michael Böhm reports support from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Servier, Medtronic, Novartis and Vifor. MB is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, TTR SFB- 219, S-01, M-03, M-05). All other authors report no conflict of interest.Funding StatementFelix Mahfoud and Michael Böhm received supported by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe dataset analysed during the current study is not publicly available but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.