Search

BackgroundCOVID-19 has infected millions of people worldwide and is responsible for several hundred thousand fatalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated thoughtful resource allocation and early identification of high-risk patients. However, effective methods to meet these needs are lacking. ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City; to develop machine learning models for making predictions about the hospital course of the patients over clinically meaningful time horizons based on patient characteristics at admission; and to assess the performance of these models at multiple hospitals and time points. MethodsWe used Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and baseline comparator models to predict in-hospital mortality and critical events at time windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 days from admission. Our study population included harmonized EHR data from five hospitals in New York City for 4098 COVID-19–positive patients admitted from March 15 to May 22, 2020. The models were first trained on patients from a single hospital (n=1514) before or on May 1, externally validated on patients from four other hospitals (n=2201) before or on May 1, and prospectively validated on all patients after May 1 (n=383). Finally, we established model interpretability to identify and rank variables that drive model predictions. ResultsUpon cross-validation, the XGBoost classifier outperformed baseline models, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for mortality of 0.89 at 3 days, 0.85 at 5 and 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days. XGBoost also performed well for critical event prediction, with an AUC-ROC of 0.80 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. In external validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.88 at 3 days, 0.86 at 5 days, 0.86 at 7 days, and 0.84 at 10 days for mortality prediction. Similarly, the unimputed XGBoost model achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.78 at 3 days, 0.79 at 5 days, 0.80 at 7 days, and 0.81 at 10 days. Trends in performance on prospective validation sets were similar. At 7 days, acute kidney injury on admission, elevated LDH, tachypnea, and hyperglycemia were the strongest drivers of critical event prediction, while higher age, anion gap, and C-reactive protein were the strongest drivers of mortality prediction. ConclusionsWe externally and prospectively trained and validated machine learning models for mortality and critical events for patients with COVID-19 at different time horizons. These models identified at-risk patients and uncovered underlying relationships that predicted outcomes.

In the recent decade, deep learning, a subset of artificial intelligence and machine learning, has been used to identify patterns in big healthcare datasets for disease phenotyping, event predictions, and complex decision making. Public datasets for electrocardiograms (ECGs) have existed since the 1980s and have been used for very specific tasks in cardiology, such as arrhythmia, ischemia, and cardiomyopathy detection. Recently, private institutions have begun curating large ECG databases that are orders of magnitude larger than the public databases for ingestion by deep learning models. These efforts have demonstrated not only improved performance and generalizability in these aforementioned tasks but also application to novel clinical scenarios. This review focuses on orienting the clinician towards fundamental tenets of deep learning, state-of-the-art prior to its use for ECG analysis, and current applications of deep learning on ECGs, as well as their limitations and future areas of improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite substantial advances in the study, treatment, and prevention of cardiovascular disease, numerous challenges relating to optimally screening, diagnosing, and managing patients remain. Simultaneous improvements in computing power, data storage, and data analytics have led to the development of new techniques to address these challenges. One powerful tool to this end is machine learning (ML), which aims to algorithmically identify and represent structure within data. Machine learning's ability to efficiently analyze large and highly complex data sets make it a desirable investigative approach in modern biomedical research. Despite this potential and enormous public and private sector investment, few prospective studies have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes from this technology. This is particularly true in cardiology, despite its emphasis on objective, data-driven results. This threatens to stifle ML's growth and use in mainstream medicine. We outline the current state of ML in cardiology and outline methods through which impactful and sustainable ML research can occur. Following these steps can ensure ML reaches its potential as a transformative technology in medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The degree of myocardial injury, as reflected by troponin elevation, and associated outcomes among U.S. hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) are unknown.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the degree of myocardial injury and associated outcomes in a large hospitalized cohort with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to 1 of 5 Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York City between February 27, 2020, and April 12, 2020, with troponin-I (normal value <0.03 ng/ml) measured within 24 h of admission were included (n = 2,736). Demographics, medical histories, admission laboratory results, and outcomes were captured from the hospitals' electronic health records.Results: The median age was 66.4 years, with 59.6% men. Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure, was more prevalent in patients with higher troponin concentrations, as were hypertension and diabetes. A total of 506 (18.5%) patients died during hospitalization. In all, 985 (36%) patients had elevated troponin concentrations. After adjusting for disease severity and relevant clinical factors, even small amounts of myocardial injury (e.g., troponin I >0.03 to 0.09 ng/ml; n = 455; 16.6%) were significantly associated with death (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.37 to 2.24; p < 0.001) while greater amounts (e.g., troponin I >0.09 ng/dl; n = 530; 19.4%) were significantly associated with higher risk (adjusted HR: 3.03; 95% CI: 2.42 to 3.80; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Myocardial injury is prevalent among patients hospitalized with COVID-19; however, troponin concentrations were generally present at low levels. Patients with CVD are more likely to have myocardial injury than patients without CVD. Troponin elevation among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Clinical scoring systems for pulmonary embolism (PE) screening have low specificity and contribute to computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) overuse. We assessed whether deep learning models using an existing and routinely collected data modality, electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms, can increase specificity for PE detection., Methods and Results: We create a retrospective cohort of 21 183 patients at moderate- to high suspicion of PE and associate 23 793 CTPAs (10.0% PE-positive) with 320 746 ECGs and encounter-level clinical data (demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, and labs). We develop three machine learning models to predict PE likelihood: an ECG model using only ECG waveform data, an EHR model using tabular clinical data, and a Fusion model integrating clinical data and an embedded representation of the ECG waveform. We find that a Fusion model [area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.81 ± 0.01] outperforms both the ECG model (AUROC 0.59 ± 0.01) and EHR model (AUROC 0.65 ± 0.01). On a sample of 100 patients from the test set, the Fusion model also achieves greater specificity (0.18) and performance (AUROC 0.84 ± 0.01) than four commonly evaluated clinical scores: Wells' Criteria, Revised Geneva Score, Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria, and 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (AUROC 0.50-0.58, specificity 0.00-0.05). The model is superior to these scores on feature sensitivity analyses (AUROC 0.66-0.84) and achieves comparable performance across sex (AUROC 0.81) and racial/ethnic (AUROC 0.77-0.84) subgroups., Conclusion: Synergistic deep learning of ECG waveforms with traditional clinical variables can increase the specificity of PE detection in patients at least at moderate suspicion for PE., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

In the recent decade, deep learning, a subset of artificial intelligence and machine learning, has been used to identify patterns in big healthcare datasets for disease phenotyping, event predictions, and complex decision making. Public datasets for electrocardiograms (ECGs) have existed since the 1980s and have been used for very specific tasks in cardiology, such as arrhythmia, ischemia, and cardiomyopathy detection. Recently, private institutions have begun curating large ECG databases that are orders of magnitude larger than the public databases for ingestion by deep learning models. These efforts have demonstrated not only improved performance and generalizability in these aforementioned tasks but also application to novel clinical scenarios. This review focuses on orienting the clinician towards fundamental tenets of deep learning, state-of-the-art prior to its use for ECG analysis, and current applications of deep learning on ECGs, as well as their limitations and future areas of improvement., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background and Objectives: AKI treated with dialysis initiation is a common complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among hospitalized patients. However, dialysis supplies and personnel are often limited., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: Using data from adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from five hospitals from the Mount Sinai Health System who were admitted between March 10 and December 26, 2020, we developed and validated several models (logistic regression, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), random forest, and eXtreme GradientBoosting [XGBoost; with and without imputation]) for predicting treatment with dialysis or death at various time horizons (1, 3, 5, and 7 days) after hospital admission. Patients admitted to the Mount Sinai Hospital were used for internal validation, whereas the other hospitals formed part of the external validation cohort. Features included demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory and vital signs within 12 hours of hospital admission., Results: A total of 6093 patients (2442 in training and 3651 in external validation) were included in the final cohort. Of the different modeling approaches used, XGBoost without imputation had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve on internal validation (range of 0.93-0.98) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC; range of 0.78-0.82) for all time points. XGBoost without imputation also had the highest test parameters on external validation (AUROC range of 0.85-0.87, and AUPRC range of 0.27-0.54) across all time windows. XGBoost without imputation outperformed all models with higher precision and recall (mean difference in AUROC of 0.04; mean difference in AUPRC of 0.15). Features of creatinine, BUN, and red cell distribution width were major drivers of the model's prediction., Conclusions: An XGBoost model without imputation for prediction of a composite outcome of either death or dialysis in patients positive for COVID-19 had the best performance, as compared with standard and other machine learning models., Podcast: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2021&#95;07&#95;09&#95;CJN17311120.mp3., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health crisis, with over 33 million cases and 999 000 deaths worldwide. Data are needed regarding the clinical course of hospitalised patients, particularly in the USA. We aimed to compare clinical characteristic of patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital mortality with those who were discharged alive., Design: Demographic, clinical and outcomes data for patients admitted to five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 between 27 February and 2 April 2020 were identified through institutional electronic health records. We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of patients who had in-hospital mortality or were discharged alive., Setting: All patients were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System, a large quaternary care urban hospital system., Participants: Participants over the age of 18 years were included., Primary Outcomes: We investigated in-hospital mortality during the study period., Results: A total of 2199 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period. As of 2 April, 1121 (51%) patients remained hospitalised, and 1078 (49%) completed their hospital course. Of the latter, the overall mortality was 29%, and 36% required intensive care. The median age was 65 years overall and 75 years in those who died. Pre-existing conditions were present in 65% of those who died and 46% of those discharged. In those who died, the admission median lymphocyte percentage was 11.7%, D-dimer was 2.4 μg/mL, C reactive protein was 162 mg/L and procalcitonin was 0.44 ng/mL. In those discharged, the admission median lymphocyte percentage was 16.6%, D-dimer was 0.93 μg/mL, C reactive protein was 79 mg/L and procalcitonin was 0.09 ng/mL., Conclusions: In our cohort of hospitalised patients, requirement of intensive care and mortality were high. Patients who died typically had more pre-existing conditions and greater perturbations in inflammatory markers as compared with those who were discharged., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GNN reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Renalytix AI, non-financial support from Pensieve Health, personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioVie, GLG Consulting, from outside the submitted work. AL reports personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. ZAF reports grants from Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Siemens Healthineers, personal fees from Alexion, GlaxoSmithKline, Trained Therapeutix Discovery, outside the submitted work. In addition, ZAF has patents licensed to Trained Therapeutix Discovery. The other authors have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)