AI Insight
This study developed a personalized decision support system combining digital heart models, coronary sinus anatomy, and machine learning to predict optimal pacing sites for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Testing on 74 patients showed the model outperformed existing clinical calculators (accuracy 78% vs 58%), and in a pilot group of 19 patients, it identified that 8 non-responders had no suitable coronary sinus pacing sites, while suggesting alternative locations for 5 others. The framework uses explainable AI to provide transparent, patient-specific reasoning for each recommendation rather than generic rules.
Why it matters
CRT fails in approximately 30% of heart failure patients, often because pacing leads are placed in suboptimal locations. This pre-procedural planning tool could help clinicians identify which patients are unlikely to benefit from standard CRT approaches and find optimal pacing sites for others, potentially reducing the failure rate and avoiding unnecessary procedures.
Understand the Science
⚠️ Preprint – Noch nicht peer-reviewed
Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht von unabhängigen Experten begutachtet. Die Ergebnisse sind vorläufig und sollten mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.
Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) fails in 30% of patients, often due to suboptimal left ventricular pacing site (LVPS) selection. Current practice lacks tools for pre-procedural, patient-specific LVPS optimization within the accessible coronary sinus (CS) tributaries. This study aimed to develop a digital twin and an explainable ML-based clinical decision support framework to address this issue. Methods: Personalized 3D cardiac models incorporating ventricular anatomy, myocardial fibrosis, and CS anatomy were constructed from CT and LGE-MRI for 74 CRT candidates. Finite-element Eikonal simulations of biventricular pacing generated patient-specific electrophysiological features at candidate LVPS. A Machine Learning (ML) classifier was trained on a hybrid feature set of pre-procedural clinical variables and model-derived indices, validated by leave-one-out cross-validation. SHAP analysis provided a physiologically interpretable rationale for each prediction. The framework was applied to a pilot cohort of 19 patients with reconstructed 3D CS anatomy to generate a spatial likelihood map of CRT response across all clinically implantable pacing sites within each patient’s CS. Results: The ML classifier outperformed the reference Feeny clinical calculator under LOO-CV (accuracy 0.78 vs 0.58; F1-score 0.75 vs 0.43), AUC=0.78, sensitivity=0.80, specificity=0.77. Bootstrap analysis yielded mean AUC=0.85 (95% CI 0.70-0.95). In the pilot CS cohort, the framework identified that 8 of 13 clinical non-responders had no accessible CS site predicted to yield a positive response, supporting redirection towards alternative pacing strategies. In the remaining 5, alternative implantable sites with high predicted response probability were identified. SHAP analysis confirmed that dominant predictors were patient-specific in their relative contributions, supporting individualized over heuristic-based LVPS selection. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a digital twin and explainable ML framework as a pre-procedural clinical decision support tool for CRT planning, stratifying patients and identifying optimal implantable sites with transparent anatomical rationale. Prospective validation and regulatory evaluation are required before clinical deployment.