Why the study?
Emergency department overcrowding is exacerbated by unnecessary visits for chest pain where 80% do not have ACS, motivating an AI model to predict ACS prehospital.
Does an AI model analyzing prehospital data improve the prediction of acute coronary syndrome compared to usual care in adults presenting to emergency medical services with cardiac symptoms?
Does an AI model analyzing prehospital data improve the prediction of acute coronary syndrome compared to usual care in adults presenting to emergency medical services with cardiac symptoms?
An AI model analyzing prehospital EMS data significantly improved the specificity of predicting acute coronary syndrome compared to usual care while maintaining high sensitivity, potentially reducing unnecessary emergency department visits.
AI prehospital ACS prediction model shows promise; hypothesis-generating for triage, prospective validation needed before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Overcrowding of hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) is a growing problem. However, not all ED consultations are necessary. For example, 80% of patients in the ED with chest pain do not have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Artificial intelligence (AI) is useful in analyzing (medical) data, and might aid health care workers in prehospital clinical decision-making before patients are presented to the hospital. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop an AI model which would be able to predict ACS before patients visit the ED. The model retrospectively analyzed prehospital data acquired by emergency medical services' nurse paramedics. METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency medical services with symptoms suggestive of ACS between September 2018 and September 2020 were included. An AI model using a supervised text classification algorithm was developed to analyze data. Data were analyzed for all 7458 patients (mean 68, SD 15 years, 54% men). Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for control and intervention groups. At first, a machine learning (ML) algorithm (or model) was chosen; afterward, the features needed were selected and then the model was tested and improved using iterative evaluation and in a further step through hyperparameter tuning. Finally, a method was selected to explain the final AI model. RESULTS: The AI model had a specificity of 11% and a sensitivity of 99.5% whereas usual care had a specificity of 1% and a sensitivity of 99.5%. The PPV of the AI model was 15% and the NPV was 99%. The PPV of usual care was 13% and the NPV was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The AI model was able to predict ACS based on retrospective data from the prehospital setting. It led to an increase in specificity (from 1% to 11%) and NPV (from 94% to 99%) when compared to usual care, with a similar sensitivity. Due to the retrospective nature of this study and the singular focus on ACS it should be seen as a proof-of-concept. Other (possibly life-threatening) diagnoses were not analyzed. Future prospective validation is necessary before implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koning et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: