Abstract 4364027: ANDES-CHD-AI study: A New algorithm DEtectS critical Congenital Heart Disease using Artificial Intelligence at different altitudes

Background: Critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) screening algorithms based on pulse oximetry have up to 27% false positive rate at high altitudes (>2500 m) despite altitude-specific cutoff changes. We examined the added value of an adult-based AI model applied to phonocardiography (AI-PCG) in the digital stethoscope EKO Core 500 in these settings. Research Question: What is the diagnostic performance of AI-PCG model compared to pulse oximetry in detecting neonatal CCHD across different altitudes in Latin America? Methods: This observational, prospective, case-control study included newborns born at different altitudes from 0 to 4380 meters in Peru, Mexico, Colombia and Bolivia. All underwent preductal and postductal oximetry at least 18 hours after birth, electrocardiography and PCG with the digital stethoscope. All CCHD cases were confirmed by echocardiography. Non-CCHD cases were defined by echocardiography or clinically if they were alive for 1 month and had 1) negative pulse oximetry, 2) no hospitalization due to cardiac or pulmonary causes and 3) no cyanosis or pneumonia. Those with abnormal pulse oximetry, genetic syndromes or murmur detection underwent echocardiography. Diagnostic performance metrics [area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity and false positive rate] were evaluated per modality. Results: A total of 1152 newborns were enrolled, 725 at <2500 m [13 (1.8%) with CCHD] and 427 at >2500 m [6 (1.4%) with CCHD]. Out of 19 CCHD cases, 17 had positive pulse oximetry and 9 had a positive AI-PCG model. One newborn with severe coarctation of the aorta and atrial septal defect had negative pulse oximetry and AI-PCG model. Pulse oximetry showed superior AUROC (0.932 vs 0.664), sensitivity (89.5% vs 47.4%), specificity (97% vs 85.5%) and lower false positive rate (3% vs 14.5%) compared to the AI-PCG model across altitudes. Diagnostic accuracy varied with altitude (Figure): at <2500 m, pulse oximetry showed higher AUROC (0.999 vs 0.612) and lower false positive rate (0.1% vs 16%) than AI-PCG model, but at >2500 m, pulse oximetry had similar AUROC (0.794 vs 0.774) and lower false positive rate (7.8% vs 11.9%) than the AI-PCG model. Conclusion: Pulse oximetry has superior diagnostic performance than an adult-based AI-PCG model when screening for neonatal CCHD at <2500 m, but similar performance is found >2500 m.