Incorporating machine learning into the decision-making process regarding implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment
Ezgi Çamlı Babayiğit, Erdi Babayiğit, Bülent Görenek

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies · Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors · Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Dear editor,
We have read with interest the research paper entitled ‘Optimizing patient selection for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: utilizing multimodal machine learning to assess risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator non-benefit’ by Kolk M.Z.H. et al.^1^ The aim of the study was to predict the risk of non-arrhythmic death in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention through serial 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings and clinical variables. Here, we would like to draw your attention to a few points of the study.
In predicting the benefit from defibrillator treatment, data such as patients’ The New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values, the presence of ventricular aneurysm or scar tissue detected by imaging methods, history of syncope, and atrial fibrillation (AF) have been shown to be useful.^2,3^ Providência et al.^4^ revealed that using NYHA, LVEF, and AF in risk scoring can be useful in identifying those who will benefit from defibrillator therapy. Adding these data, which have been shown to be useful in past studies, to multimodal machine learning could contribute to the study.
However, it is worth noting that the time span for gathering study data (between 2007 and 2021) is quite extensive, considering the rapid development of device technology during this period. Advances in transvenous systems, anti-tachycardia pacing, and programming configurations, have significantly altered the risk–benefit ratio for patients.^5^ Furthermore, the study lacks information regarding device programming and monitoring details, which could have significant implications on the study results.
The question of who will benefit from ICD treatment has led clinicians to develop various scores in recent years. This study has demonstrated that incorporating machine learning into the decision-making process regarding ICD treatment would be beneficial. We thank the researchers who contributed to solving this problem.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Kolk MZH, Ruipérez-Campillo S, Deb B, Bekkers EJ, Allaart CP, Rogers AJ et al Optimizing patient selection for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: utilizing multimodal machine learning to assess risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator non-benefit. Europace 2023;25:euad 271.10.1093/europace/euad 271PMC 1051662437712675 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Beggs SAS, Gardner RS, Mc Murray JJV. Who benefits from a defibrillator-balancing the risk of sudden versus non-sudden death. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2018;15:376–89.30413991 10.1007/s 11897-018-0416-6PMC 6267371 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Daubert JP . If some primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implants are futile, can we identify them a priori? JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2015;1:38–40.29759337 10.1016/j.jacep.2015.03.008 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Providência R, Boveda S, Lambiase P, Defaye P, Algalarrondo V, Sadoul N et al Prediction of nonarrhythmic mortality in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2015;1:29–37.29759336 10.1016/j.jacep.2015.01.004 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Sahu P, Acharya S, Totade M. Evolution of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (IC Ds) in cardiology. Cureus 2023;15:e 46389.10.7759/cureus.46389 PMC 1062062037927638 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
