Attia, Zachi I

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has given the electrocardiogram (ECG) and clinicians reading them super-human diagnostic abilities. Trained without hard-coded rules by finding often subclinical patterns in huge datasets, AI transforms the ECG, a ubiquitous, non-invasive cardiac test that is integrated into practice workflows, into a screening tool and predictor of cardiac and non-cardiac diseases, often in asymptomatic individuals. This review describes the mathematical background behind supervised AI algorithms, and discusses selected AI ECG cardiac screening algorithms including those for the detection of left ventricular dysfunction, episodic atrial fibrillation from a tracing recorded during normal sinus rhythm, and other structural and valvular diseases. The ability to learn from big data sets, without the need to understand the biological mechanism, has created opportunities for detecting non-cardiac diseases as COVID-19 and introduced challenges with regards to data privacy. Like all medical tests, the AI ECG must be carefully vetted and validated in real-world clinical environments. Finally, with mobile form factors that allow acquisition of medical-grade ECGs from smartphones and wearables, the use of AI may enable massive scalability to democratize healthcare.

Abstract Aims Early detection of aortic stenosis (AS) is becoming increasingly important with a better outcome after aortic valve replacement in asymptomatic severe AS patients and a poor outcome in moderate AS. We aimed to develop artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) using a convolutional neural network to identify patients with moderate to severe AS. Methods and results Between 1989 and 2019, 258 607 adults [mean age 63 ± 16.3 years; women 122 790 (48%)] with an echocardiography and an ECG performed within 180 days were identified from the Mayo Clinic database. Moderate to severe AS by echocardiography was present in 9723 (3.7%) patients. Artificial intelligence training was performed in 129 788 (50%), validation in 25 893 (10%), and testing in 102 926 (40%) randomly selected subjects. In the test group, the AI-ECG labelled 3833 (3.7%) patients as positive with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 78%, 74%, and 74%, respectively. The sensitivity increased and the specificity decreased as age increased. Women had lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared with men at any age groups. The model performance increased when age and sex were added to the model (AUC 0.87), which further increased to 0.90 in patients without hypertension. Patients with false-positive AI-ECGs had twice the risk for developing moderate or severe AS in 15 years compared with true negative AI-ECGs (hazard ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.90–2.50). Conclusion An AI-ECG can identify patients with moderate or severe AS and may serve as a powerful screening tool for AS in the community.

Background: Heart rate–corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation, whether secondary to drugs, genetics including congenital long QT syndrome, and/or systemic diseases including SARS-CoV-2–mediated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can predispose to ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Currently, QTc assessment and monitoring relies largely on 12-lead electrocardiography. As such, we sought to train and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled 12-lead ECG algorithm to determine the QTc, and then prospectively test this algorithm on tracings acquired from a mobile ECG (mECG) device in a population enriched for repolarization abnormalities. Methods: Using >1.6 million 12-lead ECGs from 538 200 patients, a deep neural network (DNN) was derived (patients for training, n = 250 767; patients for testing, n = 107 920) and validated (n = 179 513 patients) to predict the QTc using cardiologist-overread QTc values as the “gold standard”. The ability of this DNN to detect clinically-relevant QTc prolongation (eg, QTc ≥500 ms) was then tested prospectively on 686 patients with genetic heart disease (50% with long QT syndrome) with QTc values obtained from both a 12-lead ECG and a prototype mECG device equivalent to the commercially-available AliveCor KardiaMobile 6L. Results: In the validation sample, strong agreement was observed between human over-read and DNN-predicted QTc values (−1.76±23.14 ms). Similarly, within the prospective, genetic heart disease–enriched dataset, the difference between DNN-predicted QTc values derived from mECG tracings and those annotated from 12-lead ECGs by a QT expert (−0.45±24.73 ms) and a commercial core ECG laboratory [10.52±25.64 ms] was nominal. When applied to mECG tracings, the DNN’s ability to detect a QTc value ≥500 ms yielded an area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.97, 80.0%, and 94.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Using smartphone-enabled electrodes, an AI DNN can predict accurately the QTc of a standard 12-lead ECG. QTc estimation from an AI-enabled mECG device may provide a cost-effective means of screening for both acquired and congenital long QT syndrome in a variety of clinical settings where standard 12-lead electrocardiography is not accessible or cost-effective.

Background An artificial intelligence algorithm that detects age using the 12‐lead ECG has been suggested to signal “physiologic age.” This study aimed to investigate the association of peripheral microvascular endothelial function (PMEF) as an index of vascular aging, with accelerated physiologic aging gauged by ECG‐derived artificial intelligence–estimated age. Methods and Results This study included 531 patients who underwent ECG and a noninvasive PMEF assessment using reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry. Abnormal PMEF was defined as reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry index ≤2.0. Accelerated or delayed physiologic aging was calculated by the Δ age (ECG‐derived artificial intelligence–estimated age minus chronological age), and the association between Δ age and PMEF as well as its impact on composite major adverse cardiovascular events were investigated. Δ age was higher in patients with abnormal PMEF than in patients with normal PMEF (2.3±7.8 versus 0.5±7.7 years; P =0.01). Reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry index was negatively associated with Δ age after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors (standardized β coefficient, –0.08; P =0.048). The highest quartile of Δ age was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with the first quartile of Δ age in patients with abnormal PMEF, even after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors (hazard ratio, 4.72; 95% CI, 1.24–17.91; P =0.02). Conclusions Vascular aging detected by endothelial function is associated with accelerated physiologic aging, as assessed by the artificial intelligence–ECG Δ age. Patients with endothelial dysfunction and the highest quartile of accelerated physiologic aging have a marked increase in risk for cardiovascular events.

Abstract Aims An artificial intelligence-augmented electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) algorithm can identify left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). We sought to determine whether this AI-ECG algorithm could stratify mortality risk in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients, independent of the presence of LVSD by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Methods and results We included 11 266 unique Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 who underwent AI-ECG after CICU admission. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data were extracted for patients with a TTE during hospitalization. Hospital mortality was analysed using multivariable logistic regression. Mean age was 68 ± 15 years, including 37% females. Higher AI-ECG probability of LVSD remained associated with higher hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.05 per 0.1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.08, P = 0.003] after adjustment for LVEF, which itself was inversely related with the risk of hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.96 per 5% higher, 95% CI 0.93–0.99, P = 0.02). Patients with available LVEF data (n = 8242) were divided based on the presence of predicted (by AI-ECG) vs. observed (by TTE) LVSD (defined as LVEF ≤ 35%), using TTE as the gold standard. A stepwise increase in hospital mortality was observed for patients with a true negative, false positive, false negative, and true positive AI-ECG. Conclusion The AI-ECG prediction of LVSD is associated with hospital mortality in CICU patients, affording risk stratification in addition to that provided by echocardiographic LVEF. Our results emphasize the prognostic value of electrocardiographic patterns reflecting underlying myocardial disease that are recognized by the AI-ECG.

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.

The field of cardiac electrophysiology has been on the cutting edge of advanced digital technologies for many years. More recently, medical device development through traditional clinical trials has been supplemented by direct to consumer products with advancement of wearables and health care apps. The rapid growth of innovation along with the mega-data generated has created challenges and opportunities. This review summarizes the regulatory landscape, applications to clinical practice, opportunities for virtual clinical trials, the use of artificial intelligence to streamline and interpret data, and integration into the electronic medical records and medical practice. Preparation of the new generation of physicians, guidance and promotion by professional societies, and advancement of research in the interpretation and application of big data and the impact of digital technologies on health outcomes will help to advance the adoption and the future of digital health care.

Background: Identification of systolic heart failure among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute dyspnea is challenging. The reasons for dyspnea are often multifactorial. A focused physical evaluation and diagnostic testing can lack sensitivity and specificity. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of an artificial intelligence-enabled ECG to identify patients presenting with dyspnea who have left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Methods: We retrospectively applied a validated artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of LVSD (defined as LV ejection fraction ≤35%) to a cohort of patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated in the ED at a Mayo Clinic site with dyspnea. Patients were included if they had at least one standard 12-lead ECG acquired on the date of the ED visit and an echocardiogram performed within 30 days of presentation. Patients with prior LVSD were excluded. We assessed the model performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: A total of 1606 patients were included. Median time from ECG to echocardiogram was 1 day (Q1: 1, Q3: 2). The artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm identified LVSD with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86–0.91) and accuracy of 85.9%. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 74%, 87%, 97%, and 40%, respectively. To identify an ejection fraction <50%, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83–0.88), 86%, 63%, and 91%, respectively. NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) alone at a cutoff of >800 identified LVSD with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76–0.84). Conclusions: The ECG is an inexpensive, ubiquitous, painless test which can be quickly obtained in the ED. It effectively identifies LVSD in selected patients presenting to the ED with dyspnea when analyzed with artificial intelligence and outperforms NT-proBNP. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.