AccScience Publishing / AIH / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AIH026350130
Cite this article
3
Download
81
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Machine learning risk stratification for major adverse cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction in patients receiving early empagliflozin therapy

Raisa Trigulova1† ,  Alisher Ikramov2†* ,  Dilafruz Akhmedova3 ,  Shokhista Akhmedova3 ,  Shakhnoza Mukhtarova4
Show Less
1 Research Department of Preventive Cardiology, State Institution “Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Cardiology”, Tashkent , Uzbekistan
2 Department of Mathematics, School of Humanities, Natural and Social Sciences, New Uzbekistan University, Tashkent , Uzbekistan
3 Laboratory of Preventive Cardiology, State Institution “Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Cardiology”, Tashkent , Uzbekistan
4 Department of Endocrinology and Pediatric Endocrinology, Faculty of Medical Education and General Medicine, Tashkent State Medical University, Tashkent , Uzbekistan
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
Received: 27 August 2026 | Revised: 11 September 2026 | Accepted: 18 September 2026 | Published online: 30 September 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly prescribed after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), yet residual risk on this therapy is rarely examined alongside the drug’s association with outcomes in one cohort. We investigated 311 patients with AMI at one center (January 2024–May 2025): 251 received early empagliflozin 10 mg/day with standard therapy and were followed prospectively for six months; 60 contemporaneous patients without an SGLT2 inhibitor formed a non-randomized control group. The endpoint was six-month major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs): all-cause death, non-fatal reinfarction, urgent percutaneous coronary intervention, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization. Classical and machine learning classifiers were compared under repeated nested cross-validation, with imputation, scaling, and tuning inside each fold; the empagliflozin–MACE association was estimated by propensity-score matching on 20 covariates. MACE occurred in 83 patients (26.7%; 24.7% with empagliflozin vs. 35.0% in controls), including 17 deaths (5.5%). Cross-validated backward elimination reduced 24 candidate predictors to eight: body mass index, prior infarction, current smoking, mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist use, peak A velocity, left-ventricular end-diastolic volume, empagliflozin exposure, and discretized total cholesterol. On these features, L2-regularized logistic regression reached a pooled out-of-fold area under the curve of 0.673 (95% confidence interval 0.601–0.741) with good calibration (slope 0.88), matching random forest, gradient boosting, XGBoost, support-vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, and a multilayer perceptron. After matching (44 pairs), the odds ratio for MACE with empagliflozin was 0.79 (95% CI 0.32–1.98). Discrimination was moderate and needs external validation; the association between empagliflozin and fewer events was small and hypothesis-generating.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Acute myocardial infarction
Post-infarction remodeling
Empagliflozin
Machine learning
Propensity score
Heart-failure phenotype
Major adverse cardiovascular events
Funding
The authors declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Ministry of Innovative Development of the Republic of Uzbekistan under grant No. AL-9925025470-R3.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
  1. Timmis A, Vardas P, Townsend N, et al. European Society of Cardiology: cardiovascular disease statistics 2021. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(8):716-799. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab892
  2. Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, et al. 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(38):3720-3826. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191
  3. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(21):1995-2008. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303
  4. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1413-1424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190
  5. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1436-1446. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816
  6. von Lewinski D, Kolesnik E, Tripolt NJ, et al. Empagliflozin in acute myocardial infarction: the EMMY trial. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(41):4421-4432. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac494
  7. James S, Erlinge D, Storey RF, et al. Dapagliflozin in myocardial infarction without diabetes or heart failure. NEJM Evid. 2024;3(2). doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2300286
  8. Butler J, Jones WS, Udell JA, et al. Empagliflozin after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(16):1455-1466. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2314051
  9. Carberry J, Petrie MC, Lee MMY, et al. Empagliflozin to prevent worsening of left ventricular volumes and systolic function after myocardial infarction (EMPRESS-MI). Eur J Heart Fail. 2024;27(3):566-576. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.3560
  10. Santos-Gallego CG, Vargas-Delgado AP, Requena-Ibanez JA, et al. Randomized trial of empagliflozin in nondiabetic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (EMPA-TROPISM). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(3):243-255. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.008
  11. Lee MMY, Brooksbank KJM, Wetherall K, et al. Effect of empagliflozin on left ventricular volumes in patients with type 2 diabetes, or prediabetes, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (SUGAR-DM-HF). Circulation. 2021;143(6):516-525. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.052186
  12. Hammer A, Sossalla S, Sulzgruber P. Early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2025;11(4):365-366. doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvaf020
  13. Umar BU, Ajao LA, Dogo EM, Ajao FJ, Atama M. Artificial intelligence model for prediction of cardiovascular disease: an empirical study. Artif Intell Health. 2023;1(1):42-56. doi: 10.36922/aih.1746
  14. Baashar Y, Alkawsi G, Alhussian H, et al. Effectiveness of artificial intelligence models for cardiovascular disease prediction: network meta-analysis. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022:5849995. doi: 10.1155/2022/5849995
  15. Teshale AB, Htun HL, Vered M, Owen AJ, Freak-Poli R. A systematic review of artificial intelligence models for time-to-event outcome applied in cardiovascular disease risk prediction. J Med Syst. 2024;48(1):68. doi: 10.1007/s10916-024-02087-7
  16. Aşkın L, Polat E, Hoşoğlu Y, Tanrıverdi O. The application of artificial intelligence in the field of cardiovascular diseases focuses on both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Exp Appl Med Sci. 2024;5(2):22-35. doi: 10.46871/eams.1438927
  17. Xiang Y, Liu D, Guo L, et al. Accuracy of machine learning models for early prediction of major cardiovascular events post myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025;26(6):37224. doi: 10.31083/RCM37224
  18. Splinter R. Artificial intelligence in cardiac rhythm diagnostics and management: challenges and opportunities. Artif Intell Health. 2025;2(3):107-124. doi: 10.36922/aih.8468
  19. Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078378
  20. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the ASE and the EACVI. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(1):1-39. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2014.10.003
  21. Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the ASE and the EACVI. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29(4):277-314. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011
  22. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599-3726. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368
  23. Hirshberg B, Katz A. Cardiovascular outcome studies with novel antidiabetes agents: scientific and operational considerations. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(suppl 2):S253-S258. doi: 10.2337/dcS13-2041
  24. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
  25. Varma S, Simon R. Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7(1):91. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-91
  26. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45(1):5-32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
  27. Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2016:785-794. doi: 10.1145/2939672.2939785
  28. Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:167-176. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.005
  29. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr. Prediction models need appropriate internal, internal-external, and external validation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:245-247. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.005
  30. Riley RD, Snell KIE, Ensor J, et al. Minimum sample size for developing a multivariable prediction model: part II – binary and time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med. 2019;38(7):1276-1296. doi: 10.1002/sim.7992
  31. Lundberg SM, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst (NeurIPS 2017). 2017;30:4765-4774. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874
  32. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD). BMJ. 2015;350:g7594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7594
  33. Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925-1931. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207
  34. Mach F, Koskinas KC, Roeters van Lennep JE, et al. 2025 focused update of the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias. Atherosclerosis. 2025;409:120479. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2025.120479
  35. Kato ET, Ono K, Lewis BS. SGLT2 inhibitors in acute myocardial infarction: what can we learn from the DAPA-MI trial? Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2024;10(2):95-97. doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvad099
  36. Hernandez AF, Udell JA, Jones WS, et al. Effect of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes after acute myocardial infarction: insights from the EMPACT-MI trial. Circulation. 2024;149(21):1627-1638. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.124.069217
  37. Tripolt NJ, Kolesnik E, Benedikt M, et al. Timing of SGLT2 inhibitor initiation after acute myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2023;22(1):269. doi: 10.1186/s12933-023-02000-5
  38. Trigulova R, Akhmedova D, Akhmedova S, Mukhtarova S, Ikramov A, Alimova D. Early use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction: 2023-2025 data and clinical implications. Cardiol Belarus. 2026;18(2):312-320. doi: 10.34883/PI.2026.18.2.011
  39. Ferrannini E, Baldi S, Frascerra S, et al. Shift to fatty substrate utilization in response to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition. Diabetes. 2016;65(5):1190-1195. doi: 10.2337/db15-1356
  40. Benedikt M, Mangge H, Aziz F, et al. Impact of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin on inflammatory biomarkers after acute myocardial infarction: a post-hoc analysis of the EMMY trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2023;22(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12933-023-01904-6
  41. Hovenga E, Atalag K. Optimizing electronic health records to support artificial intelligence. Artif Intell Health. 2024;1(3):10-25. doi: 10.36922/aih.3056
  42. Zribi A, Ayaad O. Challenges in incorporating artificial intelligence into daily healthcare practice. Artif Intell Health. 2025;3(2):025350070. doi: 10.36922/AIH025350070
Share
Back to top
Artificial Intelligence in Health, Electronic ISSN: 3029-2387 Print ISSN: 3041-0894, Published by AccScience Publishing