Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) is crucial in echocardiography; however, the complexity and time demands of current guidelines challenge clinical use. This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-based framework for automatic LVDF assessment to reduce subjectivity and improve accuracy and outcome prediction. METHODS: We developed an AI-based LVDF assessment framework using a nationwide echocardiographic dataset from five tertiary hospitals. This framework automatically identifies views, calculates diastolic parameters, including mitral inflow and annular velocities (E/A ratio, e' velocity, and E/e' ratio), maximal tricuspid regurgitation velocity, left atrial (LA) volume index, and left atrial reservoir strain (LARS). Subsequently, it grades LVDF according to guidelines. The AI-framework was validated on an external dataset composed of randomly screened 173 outpatients who underwent transthoracic echocardiography with suspicion for diastolic dysfunction and 33 individuals from medical check-ups with normal echocardiograms at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, tertiary medical center in Korea, between May 2012 and June 2022. Additionally, we assessed the predictive value of AI-derived diastolic parameters and LVDF grades for a clinical endpoint, defined as a composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure, using Cox-regression risk modelling. RESULTS: In an evaluation with 200 echocardiographic examinations (167 suspected diastolic dysfunction patients, 33 controls), it achieves an overall accuracy of 99.1% in identifying necessary views. Strong correlations (Pearson coefficient 0.901-0.959) were observed between AI-derived and manually-derived measurements of diastolic parameters, including LARS as well as conventional parameters. When following the guidelines, whether utilizing AI-derived or manually-derived parameters, the evaluation of LVDF consistently showed high concordance rates (94%). However, both methods exhibited lower concordance rates with the clinician's prior assessments (77.5% and 78.5%, respectively). Importantly, both AI-derived and manually-derived LVDF grades independently demonstrated significant prognostic value [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) =3.03; P=0.03 and adjusted HR =2.75; P=0.04, respectively] for predicting clinical outcome. In contrast, the clinician's prior grading lost its significance as a prognostic indicator after adjusting for clinical risk factors (adjusted HR =1.63; P=0.36). AI-derived LARS values significantly decreased with worsening LVDF (P for trend <0.001), and low LARS (<17%) was associated with increased risk for the clinical outcome (Log-rank P=0.04) relative to that for preserved LARS (≥17%). CONCLUSIONS: Our AI-based approach for automatic LVDF assessment on echocardiography is feasible, potentially enhancing clinical diagnosis and outcome prediction.