Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40480678›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025

Towards prehospital risk stratification using deep learning for ECG interpretation in suspected acute coronary syndrome.

Jesse P A Demandt, Thomas P Mast, Konrad A J van Beek, Arjan Koks, Marieke C V Bastiaansen, Pim A L Tonino, Marcel van 't Veer, Frederik M Zimmermann, Pieter-Jan Vlaar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jesse P A Demandt *Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands jesse.demandt@catharinaziekenhuis.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6506-7108
Thomas P Mast *Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Konrad A J van BeekDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Arjan KoksGGD Brabant-Zuidoost, Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands.
Marieke C V BastiaansenDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Pim A L ToninoDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Marcel van 't VeerDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Frederik M ZimmermannDepartment of Cardiology, Sint Antonius, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Pieter-Jan VlaarDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMost patients presenting with chest pain in the emergency medical services (EMS) setting are suspected of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Distinguishing true NSTE-ACS from non-cardiac chest pain based solely on the ECG is challenging. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based model for risk stratification of suspected NSTE-ACS patients and to compare its performance with currently available prehospital diagnostic tools.

methodsFor this study, an internal training cohort and an external validation cohort were used, both consisting of suspected NSTE-ACS patients. A CNN (ECG interpretation by CNN (ECG-AI)) was trained and validated to detect NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic value of ECG-AI in detecting NSTE-ACS was compared with on-site ECG analyses by an EMS paramedic (ECG-EMS), point-of-care troponin assessment and a validated prehospital clinical risk score (prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and POC-troponin (preHEART)).

resultsA total of 5645 patients suspected of NSTE-ACS were included. In the external validation cohort (n=754), 27% were diagnosed with NSTE-ACS. ECG-AI had a better diagnostic performance than ECG-EMS (area under the curve (AUROC) 0.70 (0.66 to 0.74) vs AUROC 0.65 (0.61 to 0.70), p=0.045) for diagnosing NSTE-ACS. The overall diagnostic accuracy of preHEART was AUROC 0.78 (0.74 to 0.82) and superior compared with ECG-AI (p=0.001). Incorporating ECG-AI into preHEART led to a significant improvement in diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.83 (0.79 to 0.86), p<0.001). DISCUSSION: Correctly identifying patients who are at low risk for having NSTE-ACS is crucial for optimal triage in the prehospital setting. Recent studies have shown that these low-risk patients could potentially be left at home or transferred to a general practitioner, leading to less emergency department overcrowding and lower healthcare costs. Other studies demonstrated better overall diagnostic performance compared with our artificial intelligence (AI) model. However, these studies were aimed at a study population with a high prevalence of occlusive myocardial infarction, which could explain the differing levels of diagnostic performance.

conclusionIntegrating AI in prehospital ECG interpretation improves the identification of patients at low risk for having NSTE-ACS. Nonetheless, clinical risk scores currently yield the best diagnostic performance and their accuracy could be further enhanced through AI. Our results pave the way for new studies focused on exploring the role of AI in prehospital risk-stratification efforts.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeDeep LearningElectrocardiographyEmergency Medical ServicesAgedChest PainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentArtificial intelligenceDeep Learning

Identifiers

PMID40480678
PMCPMC12161418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.