Key result
Random Forest machine learning model predicts subsequent ICD therapy with an AUC of 0.89.
Why the study?
Many ICD recipients never experience appropriate therapy, highlighting the need for risk stratification to guide follow-up intensity and device programming.
Can a machine learning model predict the occurrence of ICD therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
Cohort (n=516)
Can a machine learning model predict the occurrence of ICD therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
A machine learning model using routine clinical and device data can accurately predict subsequent ICD therapy events, potentially enabling individualized risk assessment.
Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) play a key role in preventing sudden cardiac death by delivering antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or shock therapies. However, a substantial proportion of ICD recipients never experience appropriate therapy, underscoring the need for risk stratification to guide follow-up intensity and device programming. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning model to predict the occurrence of any ICD therapy, defined as ATP or shock, in a contemporary cohort of ICD recipients. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 516 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation between 2020 and 2024. Mean follow-up was 2.7 ± 1.6 years. The mean number of delivered ATP episodes was 1.9 ± 15 and shocks 0.7 ± 5. The binary endpoint was the occurrence of any ICD therapy during follow-up. Data were split into training and test sets (80:20) with stratification by outcome. A Random Forest classifier was trained using a standardized preprocessing pipeline including median imputation for continuous, mode imputation and one-hot encoding for categorical variables, and automated date conversion. Class imbalance was addressed by class-weighted sampling. Model performance was evaluated on the held-out test set using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and precision–recall curves, calibration analysis, and confusion matrices at default (0.5), Youden-optimal, and F1-optimal thresholds. Feature importance was determined based on Gini impurity reduction. Results The model achieved excellent discriminatory performance with an area under the ROC curve of 0.89 and a precision–recall AUC of 0.72. At the Youden-optimal threshold (J = 0.753), sensitivity was 0.75, specificity 0.88, and balanced accuracy 0.82. Calibration analysis demonstrated good agreement in the higher predicted probability range with mild underestimation at lower risk levels. The top-decile lift exceeded four times the baseline event rate, indicating strong enrichment of high-risk individuals. The most predictive features were non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, body mass index, RV defibrillation impedance, and left ventricular ejection fraction. These variables collectively accounted for more than 70% of the total model importance. Secondary contributors included atrial fibrillation, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, hypertension, diabetes, and the use of class III antiarrhythmic agents. Conclusion A machine learning model based on routinely available clinical and device-derived parameters predicted subsequent ICD therapy events in a contemporary patient cohort. The model demonstrated strong discrimination, adequate calibration, and clinically interpretable feature importance consistent with established electrophysiologic mechanisms. These findings support further investigating AI-based prediction for routine ICD follow-up to enable individualized risk assessment in patients at risk for ventricular arrhythmias.ROCTable
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiba et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in ICD recipients (n=516). Machine learning model (Random Forest) was evaluated on Occurrence of any ICD therapy (ATP or shock) (AUC 0.89). A Random Forest machine learning model predicted subsequent ICD therapy events with an area under the ROC curve of 0.89, sensitivity of 0.75, and specificity of 0.88.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: