Christopoulos, Georgios

Abstract Background The use of irreversible electroporation (IRE) for cardiac ablation in the management of cardiac arrhythmias, known as Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA), has gained the attention of many researchers, physicians and companies. Despite the demonstrated efficacy and safety profiles of the technique, there are still many open questions. One of them deals with the effective electric field thresholds necessary for cardiac tissue ablation. Contrary to radiofrequency (RF) ablation, where the thermotemporal thresholds for tissue damage are well established, the electric field thresholds for effective IRE are uncertain and depend on the tissue type and the waveform characteristics of the delivered electric field. Purpose The use of numerical models to understand the electric field distribution and the corresponding lesion for a specific electrode geometry are widely used in IRE for cancer treatment. Models can predict ablation volumes when the field thresholds are known or can be used to estimate the field thresholds when the lesion geometry is established post-treatment. The goal of the present study was to build a subject-specific realistic 3D numerical model to assess the ability of modeling to predict PFA lesions. Methods PFA experiments were performed in male mongrel dogs following a protocol approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Briefly, animals were sedated and intubated, and two non-irrigated deflectable catheters with an 8-mm tip were positioned on both sides of the interventricular septum under fluoroscopy guidance. Submicrosecond pulses were delivered in a bipolar fashion across both catheters. Sequences of pulses of 300 ns duration (or other durations in that range) were repetitively applied with voltage levels in the kV range. 30 days after the procedure, MRI with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) were acquired to assess the presence of ablation lesions in the treated tissue. Ventricular areas were segmented from MRI images and 3D volumes were created. The generated 3D geometries were imported into software COMSOL Multiphysics. Realistic 3D geometries of the catheters were placed in the same positions than during the experiments, fluoroscopy videos recorded during the procedures were used as a guidance. The computed electric field intensity distributions were compared to the LGE areas to extract the range of electric field thresholds where the predicted lesion size was compatible with the real size of the LGE areas for each application site and pulsing protocol. Results and conclusions Our results show how the numerical model is able to reproduce the shape of the LGE fibrotic lesion areas observed 30 days after the procedure. Additionally, the model clearly confirms the dose-dependent lesion sizes observed experimentally. This study supports that numerical modeling is a valuable tool for understanding PFA treatments and that it could be used as patient-specific treatment planning tool. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie

Abstract Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled electrocardiography (ECG) can detect latent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with sinus rhythm (SR). However, the change of AI-ECG probability before and after the first AF episode is not well characterized. We sought to characterize the temporal trend of AI-ECG AF probability around the first episode of AF. Methods and results We retrospectively studied adults who had at least one ECG in SR prior to an ECG that documented AF. An AI network calculated the AF probability from ECGs during SR (positive defined >8.7%, based on optimal sensitivity and specificity). The AI-ECG probability was reported prior to and after the first episode of AF and stratified by age and CHA2DS2-VASc score. Mixed effect models were used to assess the rate of change between time points. A total of 59 212 patients with 544 330 ECGs prior to AF and 413 486 ECGs after AF were included. The mean time between the first positive AI-ECG and first AF was 5.4 ± 5.7 years. The mean AI-ECG probability was 19.8% 2–5 years prior to AF, 23.6% 1–2 years prior to AF, 34.0% 0–3 months prior to AF, 40.9% 0–3 months after AF, 35.2% 1–2 years after AF, and 42.2% 2–5 years after AF (P < 0.001). The rate of increase prior to AF was higher for age >50 years CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4. Conclusion The AI-ECG probability progressively increases with time prior to the first AF episode, transiently decreases 1–2 years following AF and continues to increase thereafter.

Background: Rigorous study of ventricular fibrillation (VF) is not feasible in humans. The spatiotemporal characteristics of prolonged VF remain undefined, limiting our understanding of this lethal rhythm. Methods: VF was mapped in 4 canines. The endocardial and epicardial left ventricle (LV) and right ventricle (RV) were sequentially mapped at 0 to 15, 15 to 30, 30 to 45, and 45 to 60 minutes post-induction. Ten consecutive beats were used to determine the average cycle length and regularity index of ventricular and His-Purkinje system signals in discrete regions during each time interval. Results: Average VF time was 58±12 minutes. The shortest ventricular cycle length was present in the RV apical region (70±10 msec) at 0 to 15 minutes and at 15 to 30 minutes (89±31 msec) and LV apical region at 45 to 60 minutes (242±163 msec). The His-Purkinje system cycle length was the shortest at the RV outflow tract (75±3 msec) at 0 to 15 minutes, RV inflow and free wall (89±12 msec) at 15 to 30 minutes, LV apical region (83±14 msec) at 30 to 45 minutes, and inferior and inferolateral LV (145±23 msec) at 45 to 60 minutes. Regularity index was the highest in the RV inflow and free wall (78%) at 0 to 15 minutes, RV apical region (86%) at 15 to 30 minutes, LV septum and epicardial anterior RV (80%) at 30 to 45 minutes, and anterior and anterolateral LV (75%) at 45 to 60 minutes. Conclusions: These data suggest significant regional changes in electrical activity throughout VF in canines. A transition of fastest electrical activity from RV to LV apical regions across VF was observed. These novel insights of the temporal and spatial changes of VF merit further evaluation in diseased hearts to assess for reproducibility of findings.

Introduction: An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm applied to electrocardiography (ECG) during normal sinus rhythm (NSR) has been shown to predict concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to characterize the value of AI-ECG as a predictor of future AF and assess its performance compared to other clinical prediction scores in a population-based sample. Methods: We calculated the AI-ECG probability during NSR in patients who enrolled in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging with at least one ECG in NSR within two years prior and no history of AF at the time of the baseline study visit. The cumulative incidence of AF was estimated for strata defined by AI-ECG probability and CHARGE-AF score. Cox proportional hazards were fit to assess the independent prognostic value and interaction of AI-ECG probability and CHARGE-AF score. Concordance (c) statistics were calculated for AI-ECG probability, CHARGE-AF score and combined AI-ECG and CHARGE-AF score. Results: A total of 1,936 patients with a median age 75.8 (quartile range [QR] 70.4, 81.8) years, median CHARGE-AF score 14.0 (QR 13.2, 14.7) and median CHADS2VASC score 3 (QR 2, 4) were included in the analysis. The cumulative incidence of AF increased in a stepwise fashion across quartiles of AI-ECG probability and CHARGE-AF score (Figure 1). When compared in the same model, both AI-ECG probability (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51-2.04) and CHARGE-AF score (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.58-2.28) independently predicted AF without significant interaction (p=0.54). C statistics were 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.72) for AI-ECG probability, 0.69 (95% CI 0.66-0.71) for CHARGE-AF and 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.75) for combined AI-ECG and CHARGE-AF score. Conclusions: In the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, both the AI-ECG probability and CHARGE-AF score independently predicted time to AF. The AI-ECG may offer a means to assess risk with a single test without requiring manual or automated clinical data abstraction.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established risk factor for ischemic stroke, but it can be paroxysmal and may go undiagnosed. An artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled ECG acquired during normal sinus rhythm was recently shown to detect silent AF. The objective of this study was to determine if AI-ECG AF score is associated with presence of cerebral infarcts. Methods: Participants from a population-based study ages 30 to 95 years with T2 fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI obtained between October 10, 2011, and November 2, 2017 were considered for inclusion. Participants without ECG were excluded. AI-ECG score was calculated using most recent ECG with normal sinus rhythm at the time of MRI. Presence of infarcts was determined on FLAIR MRI scans. Logistic regression was run to evaluate the relationship between AI-ECG AF score and presence of cerebral infarcts. Similar analyses were performed using history of AF rather than AI-ECG AF score as predictor. Age and sex were included as covariates. We also examined whether a high-threshold AI-ECG score was associated with infarcts. In a prior study, an AI-ECG AF score > 0.5 was associated with a cumulative incidence of AF of 21.5% at 2 years and 52.2% at 10 years. Results: This study included 1,373 individuals. Average age was 69.6 years and 53% of participants were male. There were 136 (10%) individuals with ECG-confirmed AF; 1237 (90%) participants had no AF history. Of participants with AF, 23% (n=31) were on anticoagulation, 47% (n=64) were on antiplatelet and 18% (n=24) were on dual therapy. Only 1.3% (n=16) of patients without AF were on anticoagulation and 47% (n=578) were on antiplatelet therapy. Ischemic infarcts were detected in 214 (15.6%) patients. As a continuous measure AI-ECG was associated with infarcts but not after adjusting for age and sex (p=0.46). AI-ECG AF score > 0.5 was associated with infarcts ( p < 0.001); even after adjusting for age and sex ( p = 0.03). History of AF was also associated with infarcts after adjusting for age and sex ( p = 0.018). Conclusion: AI-ECG AF score and history of AF were associated with presence of cerebral infarcts after adjusting for age and sex. This tool could be useful in select patients with cryptogenic stroke but further investigation would be required.

Background: An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm applied to electrocardiography during sinus rhythm has recently been shown to detect concurrent episodic atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to characterize the value of AI–enabled electrocardiography (AI-ECG) as a predictor of future AF and assess its performance compared with the CHARGE-AF score (Cohorts for Aging and Research in Genomic Epidemiology–AF) in a population-based sample. Methods: We calculated the probability of AF using AI-ECG, among participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who had no history of AF at the time of the baseline study visit. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the independent prognostic value and interaction between AI-ECG AF model output and CHARGE-AF score. C statistics were calculated for AI-ECG AF model output, CHARGE-AF score, and combined AI-ECG and CHARGE-AF score. Results: A total of 1936 participants with median age 75.8 (interquartile range, 70.4–81.8) years and median CHARGE-AF score 14.0 (IQR, 13.2–14.7) were included in the analysis. Participants with AI-ECG AF model output of >0.5 at the baseline visit had cumulative incidence of AF 21.5% at 2 years and 52.2% at 10 years. When included in the same model, both AI-ECG AF model output (hazard ratio, 1.76 per SD after logit transformation [95% CI, 1.51–2.04]) and CHARGE-AF score (hazard ratio, 1.90 per SD [95% CI, 1.58–2.28]) independently predicted future AF without significant interaction ( P =0.54). C statistics were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66–0.72) for AI-ECG AF model output, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66–0.71) for CHARGE-AF, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69–0.75) for combined AI-ECG and CHARGE-AF score. Conclusions: In the present study, both the AI-ECG AF model output and CHARGE-AF score independently predicted incident AF. The AI-ECG may offer a means to assess risk with a single test and without requiring manual or automated clinical data abstraction.

Background: Clinical factors including previous history of AF, heart failure, hypertension, valvular heart disease, increased age and male gender increase the risk of AF in CLL patients (Shanafelt, Leukemia and Lymphoma 2017). Treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) such as ibrutinib has also been associated with an increased risk of AF in CLL. We evaluated the role of artificial intelligence electrocardiography (AI-ECG) in predicting ibrutinib-induced AF (and, for reference, AF unrelated to ibrutinib) in patients with CLL. Methods: We identified two cohorts of CLL patients using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database. Cohort 1 included patients evaluated within 12 months of CLL diagnosis who did not ever receive ibrutinib. Cohort 2 included patients who were treated with ibrutinib. The electrocardiographic signature of AF in sinus rhythm was detected by an AI-ECG algorithm previously developed using a convolutional neural network (Attia, Lancet 2019). The baseline AI-ECG AF score (positive defined as &gt;0.10 on a scale of 0-1 which offers best balance between sensitivity and specificity per Attia et al.) was computed based on ECGs obtained within 10 years prior to CLL diagnosis (Cohort 1) or 10 years prior to initiation of ibrutinib therapy (Cohort 2). Patients with AF at baseline, missing data, or with ECGs previously used to train the AI algorithm were excluded. Reverse Kaplan Meier diagrams were plotted for both cohorts grouped by AI-ECG positivity. Cox proportional hazards were fitted to assess the predictive ability of AI-ECG in both cohorts. Results: After screening 2,739 patients and applying exclusion criteria (126 patients had baseline AF) a total of 1,149 patients with median 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-9) baseline ECGs were included in the analysis (Figure 1A). Cohort 1 included 951 patients with a median follow up of 3.0 (IQR 0.6-7.0) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 546 (57%) patients. Cohort 2 included 198 patients with a median follow up of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-3.2) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 91 (46%) patients. In Cohort 1, the median age was 67 years (IQR 58-72), 681 (72%) of patients were men, 68% had low/intermediate risk CLL-International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 32% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. In Cohort 2, the median age was 69 years (IQR 62-75), 139 (70%) of patients were men, 13% had low/intermediate risk CLL-IPI, and 87% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. AF occurred during follow up in 164 patients (17%) in Cohort 1 and 46 patients (23%) in Cohort 2. In both Cohorts 1 and 2, a positive baseline AI-ECG significantly increased the incidence of AF during follow up (log rank &lt;0.001) (Figure 1B and C). Hazard ratios (for positive vs. negative AI-ECG) were 33.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.0-76.6) for Cohort 1 and 14.8 (95% CI 5.3-41.3) for Cohort 2. Conclusion: The addition of AI to a standard 12-lead ECG obtained during normal sinus rhythm - an inexpensive and ubiquitous test - predicts the occurrence of future AF in patients with CLL. This holds true irrespective of BTKi -based therapy and has important implications for the management of CLL patients. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:BMS: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Juno: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kay:Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Parikh:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding.