Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyDiagnostic or prognostic study

Prediction of incident atrial fibrillation using deep learning, clinical models, and polygenic scores

Eur Heart JPublished

  • Prognostic model development and validation study
  • single-centre development (tertiary cardiac centre)
  • 70/10/20 training/validation/test split
  • external validation (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV))

Authors' conclusion

ECG-AI provides an accurate tool to predict new-onset AF in a tertiary cardiac centre, surpassing clinical and PGS.

Study context

Population
Patients with sinus-rhythm ECGs at the Montreal Heart Institute without pre-existing AF
Participants
145,323 patients · 669,782 ECGs
Comparison
ECG-AI vs clinical models and AF polygenic score
Outcome
Incident AF
Follow-up
5 years

Performance

As reported in the abstract

Incident AF at 5 years (observed in 15%)
Test or modelValueAUC
ECG-AI.78.78
Primary outcome observed in
15%

Further findings

OutcomeECG-AICHARGE-AFPGSfold increased risk (95% CI)
Incident AF with ECG-AI high-risk inference (time-to-event, first ECG) · high risk = 26% of population4.3 (4.02–4.57)
Incident AF, subgroup of 2301 patients
AUCNot reported in the abstract.62.59
External validation (MIMIC-IV) · median follow-up 1.1 year
AUC.77Not reported in the abstractNot reported in the abstract
Incident AF, subgroup of 2301 patients — Adding polygenic score (PGS) and CHARGE-AF to ECG-AI improved goodness of fit (likelihood ratio test)
P < .001
Incident AF, subgroup of 2301 patients — AUC with added PGS and CHARGE-AF (minimal change)
.76-.77
  • External validation (MIMIC-IV): mean age 59 ± 18 years, 47% male

Incident AF, subgroup of 2301 patients

ECG-AI outperformed CHARGE-AF and PGS

Original publication

Prediction of incident atrial fibrillation using deep learning, clinical models, and polygenic scores. Eur Heart J. Published 1 September 2024. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae595

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it