skip to main content
10.1145/3502060.3503625acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbecbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Comparison of machine learning algorithms to predict length of hospital stay in patients undergoing heart bypass surgery

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 February 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Patients affected by coronary artery obstruction, generally undergo aortocoronary bypass, an open-heart surgery that considerably affect health care expenditure. Since that, the monitoring and government of Aortocoronary bypass performance may be of help in health care management. In this work we compare various machine learning-based classification algorithms, to determine the length of stay for aortocoronary bypass. Data were collected on a group of 116 patients of the “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona” University Hospital of Salerno (Italy). Different socio-demographic, clinical, and organizational factors were taken into consideration as input parameters of the model for carrying out the classification analysis. The predictive capability of each of the tested machine learning algorithms was assessed in terms of accuracy and error percentages in the classification and obtained results were compared. Among the adopted algorithms, the Random Forest showed far better performances than the other ones, with an accuracy level of around 97%, thus potentially suggesting the Random Forest as a reliable predictive tool in the determination of the length of hospital stay of healthcare data for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.

References

  1. Diodato M and Chedrawy E G 2014 Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the past, present, and future of myocardial revascularisation Surg. Res. Pract. 2014 726158Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Sousa A G de, Fichino M Z S, Silva G S da, Bastos F C C and Piotto R F 2015 Epidemiology of coronary artery bypass grafting at the Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa, São Paulo Rev. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. Orgao Of. Soc. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. 30 33–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lazar Harold L., Fitzgerald Carmel, Gross Stacy, Heeren Tim, Aldea Gabriel S., and Shemin Richard J. 1995 Determinants of Length of Stay After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Circulation 92 20–4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Osnabrugge R L, Speir A M, Head S J, Jones P G, Ailawadi G, Fonner C E, Fonner E, Kappetein A P and Rich J B 2014 Prediction of costs and length of stay in coronary artery bypass grafting Ann. Thorac. Surg. 98 1286–93Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Luca C, Chistol R, Corciovă F, Iliescu A and Tinică G 2014 Aortocoronary bypass graft patency assessed by coronary computed tomography angiography–unicentric study Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 118 1054–61Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahmed A A, Ibro S A, Melkamu G, Seid S S and Tesfaye T 2020 Length of Stay in the Emergency Department and Its Associated Factors at Jimma Medical Center, Southwest Ethiopia Open Access Emerg. Med. OAEM 12 227–35Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Scala A, Ponsiglione A M, Loperto I, Della Vecchia A, Borrelli A, Russo G, Triassi M and Improta G 2021 Lean Six Sigma Approach for Reducing Length of Hospital Stay for Patients with Femur Fracture in a University Hospital Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 18 2843Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ponsiglione A M, Ricciardi C, Improta G, Orabona G D, Sorrentino A, Amato F and Romano M 2021 A Six Sigma DMAIC methodology as a support tool for Health Technology Assessment of two antibiotics Math. Biosci. Eng. 18 3469–90Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ricciardi C, Ponsiglione A M, Converso G, Santalucia I, Triassi M and Improta G 2021 Implementation and validation of a new method to model voluntary departures from emergency departments Math. Biosci. Eng. 18 253–73Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tamis J E and Steinberg J S 2000 Atrial fibrillation independently prolongs hospital stay after coronary artery bypass surgery Clin. Cardiol. 23 155–9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cowper P A, DeLong E R, Peterson E D, Hannan E L, Ray K T, Racz M and Mark D B 2002 Variability in cost of coronary bypass surgery in New York State: Potential for cost savings Am. Heart J. 143 130–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Peterson E D, Coombs L P, Ferguson T B, Shroyer A L, DeLong E R, Grover F L and Edwards F H 2002 Hospital variability in length of stay after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeon's National Cardiac Database Ann. Thorac. Surg. 74 464–73Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ghali W A, Hall R E, Ash A S and Moskowitz M A 1999 Identifying Pre- and Postoperative Predictors of Cost and Length of Stay for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Am. J. Med. Qual. 14 248–54Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Weintraub W S, Jones E L, Craver J, Guyton R, and Cohen C 1989 Determinants of prolonged length of hospital stay after coronary bypass surgery. Circulation 80 276–84Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jenney A W J, Harrington G A, Russo P L and Spelman D W 2001 Cost of surgical site infections following coronary artery bypass surgery ANZ J. Surg. 71 662–4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ng C-Y, Ramli M F and Awang Y 2004 Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients Aged 70 Years and Over: Mortality, Morbidity, Length of Stay and Hospital Cost Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 12 218–23Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Polverejan E, Gardiner J C, Bradley C J, Holmes‐Rovner M and Rovner D 2003 Estimating mean hospital cost as a function of length of stay and patient characteristics Health Econ. 12 935–47Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Almashrafi A, Elmontsri M and Aylin P 2016 Systematic review of factors influencing length of stay in ICU after adult cardiac surgery BMC Health Serv. Res. 16 318Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Casalino E, Wargon M, Peroziello A, Choquet C, Leroy C, Beaune S, Pereira L, Bernard J and Buzzi J-C 2014 Predictive factors for longer length of stay in an emergency department: a prospective multicentre study evaluating the impact of age, patient's clinical acuity and complexity, and care pathways Emerg. Med. J. EMJ 31 361–8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Improta G, Balato G, Romano M, Ponsiglione A M, Raiola E, Russo M A, Cuccaro P, Santillo L C and Cesarelli M 2017 Improving performances of the knee replacement surgery process by applying DMAIC principles J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 23 1401–7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Improta G, Guizzi G, Ricciardi C, Giordano V, Ponsiglione A M, Converso G and Triassi M 2020 Agile six sigma in healthcare: Case study at santobono pediatric hospital Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Scala A, Trunfio T A, Vecchia A D, Marra A and Borrelli A 2021 Lean Six Sigma Approach to Implement a Femur Fracture Care Pathway at “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona” University Hospital 8th European Medical and Biological Engineering Conference IFMBE Proceedings ed T Jarm, A Cvetkoska, S Mahnič-Kalamiza and D Miklavcic (Cham: Springer International Publishing) pp 740–9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Al Taleb A R, Hoque M, Hasanat A and Khan M B 2017 Application of data mining techniques to predict length of stay of stroke patients 2017 International Conference on Informatics, Health Technology (ICIHT) 2017 International Conference on Informatics, Health Technology (ICIHT) pp 1–5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hassan A E, Ringheanu V M, Rabah R R, Preston L, Tekle W G and Qureshi A I 2020 Early experience utilizing artificial intelligence shows significant reduction in transfer times and length of stay in a hub and spoke model Interv. Neuroradiol. 26 615–22Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ricciardi C, Cantoni V, Green R, Improta G and Cesarelli M 2020 Is It Possible to Predict Cardiac Death? IFMBE Proc. vol 76, ed Henriques J., de Carvalho P., and Neves N. (Springer) pp 847–54Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. D'Addio G, Ricciardi C, Improta G, Bifulco P and Cesarelli M 2020 Feasibility of Machine Learning in Predicting Features Related to Congenital Nystagmus IFMBE Proc. vol 76, ed Henriques J., de Carvalho P., and Neves N. (Springer) pp 907–13Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Romano M, D'Addio G, Clemente F, Ponsiglione A M, Improta G and Cesarelli M 2014 Symbolic dynamic and frequency analysis in foetal monitoring 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA) pp 1–5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Cesarelli M, Romano M, Bifulco P, Improta G and D'Addio G 2012 An application of symbolic dynamics for FHRV assessment Studies in Health Technology and Informatics - 24th Medical Informatics in Europe Conference, MIE 2012 vol 180 pp 123–7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Romano M, Bifulco P, Ponsiglione A M, Gargiulo G D, Amato F and Cesarelli M 2018 Evaluation of floatingline and foetal heart rate variability Biomed. Signal Process. Control 39 185–96Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Neill D B 2013 Using Artificial Intelligence to Improve Hospital Inpatient Care IEEE Intell. Syst. 28 92–5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Trunfio T A, Scala A, Vecchia A D, Marra A and Borrelli A 2021 Multiple Regression Model to Predict Length of Hospital Stay for Patients Undergoing Femur Fracture Surgery at “San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona” University Hospital 8th European Medical and Biological Engineering Conference IFMBE Proceedings ed T Jarm, A Cvetkoska, S Mahnič-Kalamiza and D Miklavcic (Cham: Springer International Publishing) pp 840–7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    BECB 2021: 2021 International Symposium on Biomedical Engineering and Computational Biology
    August 2021
    262 pages
    ISBN:9781450384117
    DOI:10.1145/3502060

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 14 February 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format