Key result
Electrocardiograph-based cohort discovery using the e-ACI-TIPI algorithm achieved an ROC area of 0.84 and identified eligible clinical trial candidates more consistently than electronic health record searches.
Why the study?
Electronic health records are typically searched to identify potential trial participants, so the authors investigated medical devices used for real-time diagnostic decisions as an alternative approach for trial enrollment.
Do electrocardiograph-based algorithms improve the identification of eligible candidates for ACS clinical trials compared to electronic health records?
Observational
Yes
Do electrocardiograph-based algorithms improve the identification of eligible candidates for ACS clinical trials compared to electronic health records?
Using data directly from medical devices like electrocardiographs can provide more accurate projections of available cohorts for clinical trials than electronic health records.
Background: To identify potential participants for clinical trials, electronic health records (EHRs) are searched at potential sites. As an alternative, we investigated using medical devices used for real-time diagnostic decisions for trial enrollment. Methods: To project cohorts for a trial in acute coronary syndromes (ACS), we used electrocardiograph-based algorithms that identify ACS or ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that prompt clinicians to offer patients trial enrollment. We searched six hospitals’ electrocardiograph systems for electrocardiograms (ECGs) meeting the planned trial’s enrollment criterion: ECGs with STEMI or > 75% probability of ACS by the acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument (ACI-TIPI). We revised the ACI-TIPI regression to require only data directly from the electrocardiograph, the e-ACI-TIPI using the same data used for the original ACI-TIPI (development set n = 3,453; test set n = 2,315). We also tested both on data from emergency department electrocardiographs from across the US (n = 8,556). We then used ACI-TIPI and e-ACI-TIPI to identify potential cohorts for the ACS trial and compared performance to cohorts from EHR data at the hospitals. Results: Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas on the test set were excellent, 0.89 for ACI-TIPI and 0.84 for the e-ACI-TIPI, as was calibration. On the national electrocardiographic database, ROC areas were 0.78 and 0.69, respectively, and with very good calibration. When tested for detection of patients with > 75% ACS probability, both electrocardiograph-based methods identified eligible patients well, and better than did EHRs. Conclusion: Using data from medical devices such as electrocardiographs may provide accurate projections of available cohorts for clinical trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Selker et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndromes. Electrocardiograph-based cohort discovery (e-ACI-TIPI) vs. Electronic health record (EHR)-based cohort discovery was evaluated on Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve area for detecting acute coronary syndromes on the test set. Electrocardiograph-based cohort discovery using the e-ACI-TIPI algorithm achieved an ROC area of 0.84 and identified eligible clinical trial candidates more consistently than electronic health record searches.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: