Lay Abstract
Question Can artificial intelligence (AI) be used to predict if a person is at risk of a lethal heart rhythm, based solely on an electrocardiogram (an electrical heart tracing)?
Findings In a study of 270 adults (of which 159 had lethal arrhythmias), the AI was correct in 4 out of every 5 cases. If the AI said a person was at risk, the risk of lethal event was three times higher than normal adults.
Meaning In this study, the AI performed better than current medical guidelines. The AI was able accurately determine the risk of lethal arrhythmia from standard heart tracings over a year away which is a conceptual shift in what an AI model can see and predict. This method shows promise in better allocating implantable shock box pacemakers (ICDs) that saves lives.
Aim Current clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are insufficiently accurate for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) risk stratification leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Artificial intelligence offers novel risk stratification lens through which VA capability can be determined from electrocardiogram in normal sinus rhythm. The aim was to develop and test a deep neural network for VA risk stratification using routinely collected ambulatory electrocardiograms.
Methods A multicentre case-control study was undertaken to assess VA-ResNet-50, our open source ResNet-50 based deep neural network. VA-ResNet-50 was designed to read pyramid samples of 3-lead 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiograms to decide if a heart is capable of VA based on the electrocardiogram alone. Consecutive adults with VA from East Midlands, UK, who had ambulatory electrocardiograms as part of their NHS care between 2014 and 2022 were recruited and compared to all comer ambulatory electrocardiograms without VA.
Results Of 270 patients, 159 heterogeneous patients had a composite VA outcome. The mean time difference between the electrocardiogram and VA was 1.6 years (⅓ ambulatory electrocardiogram before VA). The deep neural network was able to classify electrocardiograms for VA capability with an accuracy of 0.76 (CI 95% 0.66 - 0.87), F1 score of 0.79 (0.67 - 0.90), AUC of 0.8 (0.67 - 0.91) and RR of 2.87 (1.41 - 5.81).
Conclusion Ambulatory electrocardiograms confer risk signals for VA risk stratification when analysed using VA-ResNet-50. Pyramid sampling from the ambulatory electrocardiograms is hypothesised to capture autonomic activity. We encourage groups to build on this open-source model.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The project was funded by the van Geest foundation, reference number VG-044. JB is supported by the NIHR through the Integrated Academic Clinical Training Pathway; NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship. IT is supported by the UKRI Turing AI Fellowship EP/V025295/2. GAN is supported by a British Heart Foundation Programme Grant (RG/17/3/32774) and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre. XL, WBN, FSS and GAN are supported by a Medical Research Council Biomedical Catalyst Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (MR/S037306/1) and NIHR i4i grant (NIHR204553).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study permissions were granted from the respective institutional review committees; registration numbers; UHN: REF8882 & UHL: REF11434.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Joint first author
EHJ Digital Health
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
