Artificial intelligence to enhance clinical value across the spectrum of cardiovascular healthcare.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being utilized in healthcare. This article provides clinicians and researchers with a step-wise foundation for high-value AI that can be applied to a variety of different data modalities. The aim is to improve the transparency and application of AI methods, with the potential to benefit patients in routine cardiovascular care. Following a clear research hypothesis, an AI-based workflow begins with data selection and pre-processing prior to analysis, with the type of data (structured, semi-structured, or unstructured) determining what type of pre-processing steps and machine-learning algorithms are required. Algorithmic and data validation should be performed to ensure the robustness of the chosen methodology, followed by an objective evaluation of performance. Seven case studies are provided to highlight the wide variety of data modalities and clinical questions that can benefit from modern AI techniques, with a focus on applying them to cardiovascular disease management. Despite the growing use of AI, further education for healthcare workers, researchers, and the public are needed to aid understanding of how AI works and to close the existing gap in knowledge. In addition, issues regarding data access, sharing, and security must be addressed to ensure full engagement by patients and the public. The application of AI within healthcare provides an opportunity for clinicians to deliver a more personalized approach to medical care by accounting for confounders, interactions, and the rising prevalence of multi-morbidity.

Importance and Assessment of Quality of Life in Symptomatic Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: Patient Focus Groups from the RATE-AF Trial.

AIMS: To establish the extent and impact of symptoms in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the importance of different aspects of quality of life (QoL), and how we should assess wellbeing. METHODS: Focus groups of patients with symptomatic permanent AF in a trial of heart rate control; the RATE-AF trial randomised 160 patients aged ≥60 years with permanent AF and at least NYHA class II dyspnoea to either digoxin or beta-blockers. Patient and public representatives led the focus groups and performed all data acquisition and analysis, using thematic approaches to interpret patient views about QoL and its measurement. RESULTS: Substantial impairment of health-related QoL was noted in 160 trial patients, with impact on all domains apart from mental health. Eight women and 11 men aged 61-87 years participated in the focus groups. Common themes were a lack of information from healthcare professionals about AF, a lack of focus on QoL in consultations, and a sense of frustration, isolation, and reduced confidence. There was marked variability in symptoms in individual patients, with some describing severe impact on activities of daily living, and profound interaction with comorbidities such as arthritis. Day-to-day variation in QoL and difficulty in attributing symptom burden to AF or other comorbidities led to challenges in questionnaire completion. Consensus was reached that collecting both general and AF-specific QoL would be useful in routine practice, along with participation in peer support, which was empowering for the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of comorbidities is poorly appreciated in the context of AF, with considerable variability in QoL that requires both generic and AF-specific assessment. Improvement in QoL should direct the appraisal, and reappraisal, of treatment decisions for patients with permanent AF.

Effect of Digoxin vs Bisoprolol for Heart Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation on Patient-Reported Quality of Life: The RATE-AF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure. Objective: To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a ß-blocker). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019. Interventions: Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 µg/d; mean dose, 161 µg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting. Results: Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13.

Consumer wearable devices for evaluation of heart rate control using digoxin versus beta-blockers: the RATE-AF randomized trial.

Consumer-grade wearable technology has the potential to support clinical research and patient management. Here, we report results from the RATE-AF trial wearables study, which was designed to compare heart rate in older, multimorbid patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and heart failure who were randomized to treatment with either digoxin or beta-blockers. Heart rate (n = 143,379,796) and physical activity (n = 23,704,307) intervals were obtained from 53 participants (mean age 75.6 years (s.d. 8.4), 40% women) using a wrist-worn wearable linked to a smartphone for 20 weeks. Heart rates in participants treated with digoxin versus beta-blockers were not significantly different (regression coefficient 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.82 to 5.27; P = 0.55); adjusted 0.66 (95% CI -3.45 to 4.77; P = 0.75)). No difference in heart rate was observed between the two groups of patients after accounting for physical activity (P = 0.74) or patients with high activity levels (≥30,000 steps per week; P = 0.97). Using a convolutional neural network designed to account for missing data, we found that wearable device data could predict New York Heart Association functional class 5 months after baseline assessment similarly to standard clinical measures of electrocardiographic heart rate and 6-minute walk test (F1 score 0.56 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.70) versus 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.68); P = 0.88 for comparison). The results of this study indicate that digoxin and beta-blockers have equivalent effects on heart rate in atrial fibrillation at rest and on exertion, and suggest that dynamic monitoring of individuals with arrhythmia using wearable technology could be an alternative to in-person assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02391337 .

Improving the diagnosis of heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the echocardiographic assessment of heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by comparing conventional averaging of consecutive beats with an index-beat approach, whereby measurements are taken after two cycles with similar R-R interval. METHODS: Transthoracic echocardiography was performed using a standardised and blinded protocol in patients enrolled in the RATE-AF (RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation) randomised trial. We compared reproducibility of the index-beat and conventional consecutive-beat methods to calculate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS) and E/e' (mitral E wave max/average diastolic tissue Doppler velocity), and assessed intraoperator/interoperator variability, time efficiency and validity against natriuretic peptides. RESULTS: 160 patients were included, 46% of whom were women, with a median age of 75 years (IQR 69-82) and a median heart rate of 100 beats per minute (IQR 86-112). The index-beat had the lowest within-beat coefficient of variation for LVEF (32%, vs 51% for 5 consecutive beats and 53% for 10 consecutive beats), GLS (26%, vs 43% and 42%) and E/e' (25%, vs 41% and 41%). Intraoperator (n=50) and interoperator (n=18) reproducibility were both superior for index-beats and this method was quicker to perform (p<0.001): 35.4 s to measure E/e' (95% CI 33.1 to 37.8) compared with 44.7 s for 5-beat (95% CI 41.8 to 47.5) and 98.1 s for 10-beat (95% CI 91.7 to 104.4) analyses. Using a single index-beat did not compromise the association of LVEF, GLS or E/e' with natriuretic peptide levels. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with averaging of multiple beats in patients with AF, the index-beat approach improves reproducibility and saves time without a negative impact on validity, potentially improving the diagnosis and classification of heart failure in patients with AF.

A review of rate control in atrial fibrillation, and the rationale and protocol for the RATE-AF trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and causes impaired quality of life, an increased risk of stroke and death as well as frequent hospital admissions. The majority of patients with AF require control of heart rate. In this article , we summarise the limited evidence from clinical trials that guides prescription, and present the rationale and protocol for a new randomised trial. As rate control has not yet been shown to reduce mortality, there is a clear need to compare the impact of therapy on quality of life, cardiac function and exercise capacity. Such a trial should concentrate on the long-term effects of treatment in the largest proportion of patients with AF, those with symptomatic permanent AF, with the aim of improving patient well-being. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: The RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) trial will enrol 160 participants with a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end point design comparing initial rate control with digoxin or bisoprolol. This will be the first head-to-head randomised trial of digoxin and beta-blockers in AF. PARTICIPANTS: Recruited patients will be aged ≥60 years with permanent AF and symptoms of breathlessness (equivalent to New York Heart Association class II or above), with few exclusion criteria to maximise generalisability to routine clinical practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is patient-reported quality of life, with secondary outcomes including echocardiographic ventricular function, exercise capacity and biomarkers of cellular and clinical response. Follow-up will occur at 6 and 12 months, with feasibility components to inform the design of a future trial powered to detect a difference in hospital admission. The RATE-AF trial will underpin an integrated approach to management including biomarkers, functions and symptoms that will guide future research into optimal, personalised rate control in patients with AF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (16/EM/0178); peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02391337; ISRCTN: 95259705. Pre-results.