Comparison of Machine Learning Methods With National Cardiovascular Data Registry Models for Prediction of Risk of Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Key Points Question Can machine learning techniques, bolstered by better selection of variables, improve prediction of major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)? Findings In this comparative effectiveness study that modeled more than 3 million PCI procedures, machine learning techniques improved the prediction of post-PCI major bleeding to a C statistic of 0.82 compared with a C statistic of 0.78 from the existing model. Machine learning techniques improved the identification of an additional 3.7% of bleeding cases and 1.0% of nonbleeding cases. Meaning By leveraging more complex, raw variables, machine learning techniques are better able to identify patients at risk for major bleeding and who can benefit from bleeding avoidance therapies.

[1]  R. Califf,et al.  Association between bleeding, blood transfusion, and costs among patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. , 2008, American heart journal.

[2]  David J Cohen,et al.  Association between bleeding events and in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, JAMA.

[3]  K. Murugiah,et al.  Enhancing the prediction of acute kidney injury risk after percutaneous coronary intervention using machine learning techniques: A retrospective cohort study , 2018, PLoS medicine.

[4]  Tong Zhang,et al.  On the Consistency of Feature Selection using Greedy Least Squares Regression , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[5]  S. Negahban,et al.  Analysis of Machine Learning Techniques for Heart Failure Readmissions , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[6]  Mandeep Singh,et al.  An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  S. Wood Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R , 2006 .

[8]  S. Wood Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, Second Edition , 2017 .

[9]  Tianqi Chen,et al.  XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System , 2016, KDD.

[10]  J. Messenger,et al.  Clinical ResearchInterventional CardiologyThe Prevalence and Outcomes of Transradial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Analysis From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (2007 to 2011) , 2013 .

[11]  Guy Lapalme,et al.  A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks , 2009, Inf. Process. Manag..

[12]  S. Steinhubl,et al.  Development and validation of a bleeding risk model for patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2011, International journal of cardiology.

[13]  H V Anderson,et al.  The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry™ (ACC-NCDR™): building a national clinical data repository , 2001 .

[14]  A. Zeileis Econometric Computing with HC and HAC Covariance Matrix Estimators , 2004 .

[15]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. , 2010, Journal of statistical software.

[16]  J. Spertus,et al.  Improving the process of informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention: patient outcomes from the Patient Risk Information Services Manager (ePRISM) study. , 2015, American heart journal.

[17]  J. Messenger,et al.  The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief: the NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  Xavier Robin,et al.  pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[19]  M. Correia Nutrition in times of Covid-19, how to trust the deluge of scientific information , 2020, Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care.