Use of Machine Learning to Develop a Risk-Stratification Tool for Emergency Department Patients With Acute Heart Failure - 22/01/21
, Dustin G. Mark, MD a, Jie Huang, PhD c, Oleg Sofrygin, PhD c, Jamal S. Rana, MD, PhD b, Sean P. Collins, MD, MSc d, Alan B. Storrow, MD d, Dandan Liu, PhD e, Mary E. Reed, DrPH cAbstract |
Study objective |
We use variables from a recently derived acute heart failure risk-stratification rule (STRATIFY) as a basis to develop and optimize risk prediction using additional patient clinical data from electronic health records and machine-learning models.
Methods |
Using a retrospective cohort design, we identified all emergency department (ED) visits for acute heart failure between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, among adult health plan members of a large system with 21 EDs. The primary outcome was any 30-day serious adverse event, including death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, balloon-pump insertion, intubation, new dialysis, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. Starting with the 13 variables from the STRATIFY rule (base model), we tested whether predictive accuracy in a different population could be enhanced with additional electronic health record–based variables or machine-learning approaches (compared with logistic regression). We calculated our derived model area under the curve (AUC), calculated test characteristics, and assessed admission rates across risk categories.
Results |
Among 26,189 total ED encounters, mean patient age was 74 years, 51.7% were women, and 60.7% were white. The overall 30-day serious adverse event rate was 18.8%. The base model had an AUC of 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.77). Incorporating additional variables led to improved accuracy with logistic regression (AUC 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.82) and machine learning (AUC 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.86). We found that 11.1%, 25.7%, and 48.9% of the study population had predicted serious adverse event risk of less than or equal to 3%, less than or equal to 5%, and less than or equal to 10%, respectively, and 28% of those with less than or equal to 3% risk were admitted.
Conclusion |
Use of a machine-learning model with additional variables improved 30-day risk prediction compared with conventional approaches.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Please see page 238 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
| Supervising editor: Clare L. Atzema, MD, MSc. Specific detailed information about possible conflict of interest for individual editors is available at editors. |
|
| Author contributions: DRS, DGM, JH, SPC, ABS, JSR, and MER conceived the study, designed the trial, and obtained research funding. MER, DRS, and JH supervised the conduct of the trial data collection, and data management. JH, MER, DL, and OS provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. DRS drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. DRS takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
| All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
| Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). This study was supported by The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science Research Program. |
|
| Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide JG9WKCF to Annals on this particular article. |
|
| A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 77 - N° 2
P. 237-248 - février 2021 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
