INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-POWERED ECG MODEL DETECTING OCCLUSION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

Background. One third of Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients present with an acutely occluded culprit coronary artery (occlusion myocardial infarction [OMI]), which is associated with poor short and long-term outcomes due to delayed identification and consequent delayed invasive management. We sought to develop and validate a versatile artificial intelligence (AI)-model detecting OMI on single standard 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and compare its performance to existing state-of-the-art diagnostic criteria. Methods. An AI model was developed using 18,616 ECGs from 10,692 unique contacts (22.9% OMI) of 10,543 patients (age 66{+/-}14 years, 65.9% males) with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) originating from an international online database and a tertiary care center. This AI model was tested on an international test set of 3,254 ECGs from 2,263 unique contacts (20% OMI) of 2,222 patients (age 62{+/-}14 years, 67% males) and compared with STEMI criteria and annotations of ECG experts in detecting OMI on 12-lead ECGs using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and time to OMI diagnosis. OMI was based on a combination of angiographic and biomarker outcomes. Results. The AI model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.941 (95% CI: 0.926-0.954) in identifying the primary outcome of OMI, with superior performance (accuracy 90.7% [95% CI: 89.5-91.9], sensitivity 82.6% [95% CI: 78.9-86.1], specificity 92.8 [95% CI: 91.5-93.9]) compared to STEMI criteria (accuracy 84.9% [95% CI: 83.5-86.3], sensitivity 34.4% [95% CI: 30.0-38.8], specificity 97.6% [95% CI: 96.8-98.2]) and similar performance compared to ECG experts (accuracy 91.2% [95% CI: 90.0-92.4], sensitivity 75.9% [95% CI: 71.9-80.0], specificity 95.0 [95% CI: 94.0-96.0]). The average time from presentation to a correct diagnosis of OMI was significantly shorter when relying on the AI model compared to STEMI criteria (2.0 vs. 4.9 hours, p<0.001). Conclusions. The present novel ECG AI model demonstrates superior accuracy and earlier diagnosis of AI to detect acute OMI when compared to the STEMI criteria. Its external and international validation suggests its potential to improve ACS patient triage with timely referral for immediate revascularization.

[1]  M. Penicka,et al.  Utilizing longitudinal data in assessing all‐cause mortality in patients hospitalized with heart failure , 2022, ESC heart failure.

[2]  Yoshio Kobayashi,et al.  Prehospital diagnostic algorithm for acute coronary syndrome using machine learning: a prospective observational study , 2022, Scientific Reports.

[3]  A. Singer,et al.  Ischemic ST‐Segment Depression Maximal in V1–V4 (Versus V5–V6) of Any Amplitude Is Specific for Occlusion Myocardial Infarction (Versus Nonocclusive Ischemia) , 2021, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[4]  Dennis H. Murphree,et al.  Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Electrocardiogram for the Early Detection of Cardiac Amyloidosis. , 2021, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[5]  A. Singer,et al.  Accuracy of OMI ECG findings versus STEMI criteria for diagnosis of acute coronary occlusion myocardial infarction , 2021, International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature.

[6]  A. Singer,et al.  Comparison of the ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) vs. NSTEMI and Occlusion MI (OMI) vs. NOMI Paradigms of Acute MI. , 2020, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[7]  Yang Hou,et al.  Early detection of ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction by artificial intelligence with 12-lead electrocardiogram. , 2020, International journal of cardiology.

[8]  Michael J Ackerman,et al.  Detection of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using a Convolutional Neural Network-Enabled Electrocardiogram. , 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  Stephen W. Smith,et al.  Prospective, real-world evidence showing the gap between ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and occlusion MI (OMI). , 2019, International journal of cardiology.

[10]  Keiichi Fukuda,et al.  Artificial intelligence to predict needs for urgent revascularization from 12-leads electrocardiography in emergency patients , 2019, PloS one.

[11]  Rickey E. Carter,et al.  Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram , 2019, Nature Medicine.

[12]  D. Garcia-Dorado,et al.  Area at risk and collateral circulation in a first acute myocardial infarction with occluded culprit artery. STEMI vs non-STEMI patients. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[13]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Impact of total occlusion of culprit artery in acute non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, European heart journal.

[14]  I. Kowalik,et al.  Relationship between infarct artery location, acute total coronary occlusion, and mortality in STEMI and NSTEMI patients. , 2017, Polish archives of internal medicine.

[15]  Oktay Yildiz,et al.  Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome with a Support Vector Machine , 2016, Journal of Medical Systems.

[16]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Multivessel vs culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention among patients 65 years or older with acute myocardial infarction. , 2016, American heart journal.

[17]  Stephen W. Smith,et al.  Validation of the modified Sgarbossa criteria for acute coronary occlusion in the setting of left bundle branch block: A retrospective case-control study. , 2015, American heart journal.

[18]  Farzan MADADIZADEH,et al.  Common Statistical Mistakes in Descriptive Statistics Reports of Normal and Non-Normal Variables in Biomedical Sciences Research , 2015, Iranian journal of public health.

[19]  T. Henry,et al.  Diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block with the ST-elevation to S-wave ratio in a modified Sgarbossa rule. , 2012, Annals of emergency medicine.

[20]  Kurt S. Hoffmayer,et al.  Prevalence and factors associated with false-positive ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction diagnoses at primary percutaneous coronary intervention–capable centers: a report from the Activate-SF registry. , 2012, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  Barbara T. Unger,et al.  "False-positive" cardiac catheterization laboratory activation among patients with suspected ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. , 2007, JAMA.

[22]  R. L. Kennedy,et al.  Artificial neural network models for prediction of acute coronary syndromes using clinical data from the time of presentation. , 2005, Annals of emergency medicine.

[23]  W. Baxt,et al.  A neural network aid for the early diagnosis of cardiac ischemia in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[24]  W. Baxt,et al.  Prospective validation of artificial neural network trained to identify acute myocardial infarction , 1996, The Lancet.

[25]  K. Hajian‐Tilaki,et al.  Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Medical Diagnostic Test Evaluation. , 2013, Caspian journal of internal medicine.

[26]  J. Ornato,et al.  An evaluation of the accuracy of emergency physician activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory for patients with suspected ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. , 2010, Annals of emergency medicine.

[27]  Mattias Ohlsson,et al.  In search of the best method to predict acute coronary syndrome using only the electrocardiogram from the emergency department. , 2009, Journal of electrocardiology.

[28]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[29]  William J. Long,et al.  Using Classification Tree and Logistic Regression Methods to Diagnose Myocardial Infarction , 1998, MedInfo.