Using machine learning to predict acute myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease in primary care cardiovascular patients.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition, which preferably happens in primary care, is the most important tool to combat cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aims to predict acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) using Machine Learning (ML) in primary care cardiovascular patients. We compare the ML-models' performance with that of the common SMART algorithm and discuss clinical implications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-level medical record data (n = 13,218) collected between 2011-2021 from 90 GP-practices were used to construct two random forest models (one for AMI and one for IHD) as well as a linear model based on the SMART risk prediction algorithm as a suitable comparator. The data contained patient-level predictors, including demographics, procedures, medications, biometrics, and diagnosis. Temporal cross-validation was used to assess performance. Furthermore, predictors that contributed most to the ML-models' accuracy were identified. The ML-model predicting AMI had an accuracy of 0.97, a sensitivity of 0.67, a specificity of 1.00 and a precision of 0.99. The AUC was 0.96 and the Brier score was 0.03. The IHD-model had similar performance. In both ML-models anticoagulants/antiplatelet use, systolic blood pressure, mean blood glucose, and eGFR contributed most to model accuracy. For both outcomes, the SMART algorithm was substantially outperformed by ML on all metrics. CONCLUSION: Our findings underline the potential of using ML for CVD prediction purposes in primary care, although the interpretation of predictors can be difficult. Clinicians, patients, and researchers might benefit from transitioning to using ML-models in support of individualized predictions by primary care physicians and subsequent (secondary) prevention.

Identifying prognostic factors for clinical outcomes and costs in four high-volume surgical treatments using routinely collected hospital data.

Identifying prognostic factors (PFs) is often costly and labor-intensive. Routinely collected hospital data provide opportunities to identify clinically relevant PFs and construct accurate prognostic models without additional data-collection costs. This multicenter (66 hospitals) study reports on associations various patient-level variables have with outcomes and costs. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, 30-day readmission, 30-day reintervention and in-hospital costs. Candidate PFs were age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, prior hospitalizations, prior days spent in hospital, and socio-economic status. Included patients dealt with either colorectal carcinoma (CRC, n = 10,254), urinary bladder carcinoma (UBC, n = 17,385), acute percutaneous coronary intervention (aPCI, n = 25,818), or total knee arthroplasty (TKA, n = 39,214). Prior hospitalization significantly increased readmission risk in all treatments (OR between 2.15 and 25.50), whereas prior days spent in hospital decreased this risk (OR between 0.55 and 0.95). In CRC patients, women had lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.64), ICU admittance (OR 0.68) and 30-day reintervention (OR 0.70). Prior hospitalization was the strongest PF for higher costs across all treatments (31-64% costs increase/hospitalization). Prognostic model performance (c-statistic) ranged 0.67-0.92, with Brier scores below 0.08. R-squared ranged from 0.06-0.19 for LoS and 0.19-0.38 for costs. Identified PFs should be considered as building blocks for treatment-specific prognostic models and information for monitoring patients after surgery. Researchers and clinicians might benefit from gaining a better insight into the drivers behind (costs) prognosis.