Dataset Information

Supplementing Existing Societal Risk Models for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Machine Learning for Improved Prediction.

ABSTRACT: Background This study evaluated the role of supplementing Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk models for surgical aortic valve replacement with machine learning (ML). Methods and Results Adults undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in the STS National Database between 2007 and 2017 were included. ML models for operative mortality and major morbidity were previously developed using extreme gradient boosting. Concordance and discordance in predicted risk between ML and STS models were defined using equal-size tertile-based thresholds of risk. Calibration metrics and discriminatory capability were compared between concordant and discordant patients. A total of 243 142 patients were included. Nearly all calibration metrics were improved in cases of concordance. Similarly, concordance indices improved substantially in cases of concordance for all models with the exception of deep sternal wound infection. The greatest improvements in concordant versus discordant cases were in renal failure: ML model (concordance index, 0.660 [95% CI, 0.632-0.687] discordant versus 0.808 [95% CI, 0.794-0.822] concordant) and STS model (concordance index, 0.573 [95% CI, 0.549-0.576] discordant versus 0.797 [95% CI, 0.782-0.811] concordant) (each P<0.001). Excluding deep sternal wound infection, the concordance indices ranged from 0.549 to 0.660 for discordant cases and 0.674 to 0.808 for concordant cases. Conclusions Supplementing ML models with existing STS models for surgical aortic valve replacement may have an important role in risk prediction and should be explored further. In particular, for the roughly 25% to 50% of patients demonstrating discordance in estimated risk between ML and STS, there appears to be a substantial decline in predictive performance suggesting vulnerability of the existing models in these patient subsets.

SUBMITTER: Kilic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8751954 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresThe associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined.ResultsAmong the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.

Project description:Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ?$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Dataset Information

Supplementing Existing Societal Risk Models for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Machine Learning for Improved Prediction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets