Artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiograms for identification of patients with low ejection fraction: a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial
We have conducted a pragmatic clinical trial aimed to assess whether an electrocardiogram (ECG)-based, artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support tool enables early diagnosis of low ejection fraction (EF), a condition that is underdiagnosed but treatable. In this trial ( NCT04000...
Saved in:
| Published in | Nature medicine Vol. 27; no. 5; pp. 815 - 819 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
New York
Nature Publishing Group US
01.05.2021
Nature Publishing Group |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 1078-8956 1546-170X 1546-170X |
| DOI | 10.1038/s41591-021-01335-4 |
Cover
| Summary: | We have conducted a pragmatic clinical trial aimed to assess whether an electrocardiogram (ECG)-based, artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support tool enables early diagnosis of low ejection fraction (EF), a condition that is underdiagnosed but treatable. In this trial (
NCT04000087
), 120 primary care teams from 45 clinics or hospitals were cluster-randomized to either the intervention arm (access to AI results; 181 clinicians) or the control arm (usual care; 177 clinicians). ECGs were obtained as part of routine care from a total of 22,641 adults (
N
= 11,573 intervention;
N
= 11,068 control) without prior heart failure. The primary outcome was a new diagnosis of low EF (≤50%) within 90 days of the ECG. The trial met the prespecified primary endpoint, demonstrating that the intervention increased the diagnosis of low EF in the overall cohort (1.6% in the control arm versus 2.1% in the intervention arm, odds ratio (OR) 1.32 (1.01–1.61),
P
= 0.007) and among those who were identified as having a high likelihood of low EF (that is, positive AI-ECG, 6% of the overall cohort) (14.5% in the control arm versus 19.5% in the intervention arm, OR 1.43 (1.08–1.91),
P
= 0.01). In the overall cohort, echocardiogram utilization was similar between the two arms (18.2% control versus 19.2% intervention,
P
= 0.17); for patients with positive AI-ECGs, more echocardiograms were obtained in the intervention compared to the control arm (38.1% control versus 49.6% intervention,
P
< 0.001). These results indicate that use of an AI algorithm based on ECGs can enable the early diagnosis of low EF in patients in the setting of routine primary care.
In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial, use of an AI algorithm for interpretation of electrocardiograms in primary care practices increased the frequency at which impaired heart function was diagnosed. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Feature-3 ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| ISSN: | 1078-8956 1546-170X 1546-170X |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41591-021-01335-4 |