Derivation, External Validation and Clinical Implications of a deep learning approach for intracranial pressure estimation using non-cranial waveform measurements
Faris Gulamali,Pushkala Jayaraman,Ashwin S Sawant,Jacob Desman,Benjamin Fox,Annie Chang,Brian Y Soong,Naveen Arivazaghan,Alexandra S Reynolds,Son Q Duong,Akhil Vaid,Patricia Kovatch,Robert Freeman,Ira S Hofer,Ankit Sakhuja,Neha S Dangayach,David S Reich,Alexander W Charney,Girish N Nadkarni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.30.24301974
2024-01-30
MedRxiv
Abstract:Importance: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is associated with adverse neurological outcomes, but needs invasive monitoring. Objective: Development and validation of an AI approach for detecting increased ICP (aICP) using only non-invasive extracranial physiological waveform data. Design: Retrospective diagnostic study of AI-assisted detection of increased ICP. We developed an AI model using exclusively extracranial waveforms, externally validated it and assessed associations with clinical outcomes. Setting: MIMIC-III Waveform Database (2000-2013), a database derived from patients admitted to an ICU in an academic Boston hospital, was used for development of the aICP model, and to report association with neurologic outcomes. Data from Mount Sinai Hospital (2020-2022) in New York City was used for external validation. Participants: Patients were included if they were older than 18 years, and were monitored with electrocardiograms, arterial blood pressure, respiratory impedance plethysmography and pulse oximetry. Patients who additionally had intracranial pressure monitoring were used for development (N=157) and external validation (N=56). Patients without intracranial monitors were used for association with outcomes (N=1694). Exposures: Extracranial waveforms including electrocardiogram, arterial blood pressure, plethysmography and SpO2. Main outcomes and measures: Intracranial pressure > 15 mmHg. Measures were Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy at threshold of 0.5. We calculated odds ratios and p-values for phenotype association. Results: The AUROC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.91) on testing and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.80-0.80) on external validation. aICP had accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 73.8% (95% CI, 72.0%-75.6%), 99.5% (95% CI 99.3%-99.6%), and 76.9% (95% CI, 74.0-79.8%) on external validation. A ten-percentile increment was associated with stroke (OR=2.12; 95% CI, 1.27-3.13), brain malignancy (OR=1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60), subdural hemorrhage (OR=1.66; 95% CI, 1.07-2.57), intracerebral hemorrhage (OR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), and procedures like percutaneous brain biopsy (OR=1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18) and craniotomy (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.84; P < 0.05 for all). Conclusions and relevance: aICP provides accurate, non-invasive estimation of increased ICP, and is associated with neurological outcomes and neurosurgical procedures in patients without intracranial monitoring.