METHODS: This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning.
RESULTS: One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83.
CONCLUSION: Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.
METHODS: Two-year post-discharge follow-up data were analyzed from 8757 ACS PCI patients from EPICOR Asia (218 centers, eight countries). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], non-fatal ischemic stroke), PCI characteristics, and AMPs were recorded. For MACE, time - to - event was analyzed using Cox regression.
RESULTS: Primary PCI was performed in 62.0% of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), 38.7% of non-STEMI (NSTEMI), and 24.2% of unstable angina (UA) patients. At 12 months, 88.1% of patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), with no differences by index event. Most (61.5%) still received DAPT at 2 years. Two-year incidences of mortality, composite MACE, and bleeding were 3.6%, 6.2%, and 6.6%, respectively. Risk of death and MACE was increased with STEMI and NSTEMI vs. UA. Patients from East Asia showed lower mortality and more bleeding vs. Southeast Asia/India.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients in EPICOR Asia underwent PCI and received DAPT up to 2 years post-discharge. These real-world findings improve our understanding of AMP impact on outcomes in Asian patients with ACS undergoing PCI.