AI Evaluation of Stenosis on Coronary CTA, Comparison With Quantitative Coronary Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve: A CREDENCE Trial Substudy.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Griffin William F, Choi Andrew D, Riess Joanna S, Marques Hugo, Chang Hyuk-Jae, Choi Jung Hyun, Doh Joon-Hyung, Her Ae-Young, Koo Bon-Kwon, Nam Chang-Wook, Park Hyung-Bok, Shin Sang-Hoon, Cole Jason, Gimelli Alessia, Khan Muhammad Akram, Lu Bin, Gao Yang, Nabi Faisal, Nakazato Ryo, Schoepf U Joseph, Driessen Roel S, Bom Michiel J, Thompson Randall, Jang James J, Ridner Michael, Rowan Chris, Avelar Erick, Généreux Philippe, Knaapen Paul, de Waard Guus A, Pontone Gianluca, Andreini Daniele, Earls James P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the performance for detection and grading of coronary stenoses using artificial intelligence-enabled quantitative coronary computed tomography (AI-QCT) angiography analyses to core lab-interpreted coronary CTA, core lab quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR).
METHODS: Coronary CTA, FFR, and QCA data from 303 stable patients (64 ± 10 years of age, 71% male) from the CREDENCE (Computed TomogRaphic Evaluation of Atherosclerotic DEtermiNants of Myocardial IsChEmia) trial were retrospectively analyzed using an Food and Drug Administration-cleared cloud-based software that performs AI-enabled coronary segmentation, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization, and stenosis determination.
RESULTS: Disease prevalence was high, with 32.0%, 35.0%, 21.0%, and 13.0% demonstrating ≥50% stenosis in 0, 1, 2, and 3 coronary vessel territories, respectively. Average AI-QCT analysis time was 10.3 ± 2.7 minutes. AI-QCT evaluation demonstrated per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 94%, 68%, 81%, 90%, and 84%, respectively, for ≥50% stenosis, and of 94%, 82%, 69%, 97%, and 86%, respectively, for detection of ≥70% stenosis. There was high correlation between stenosis detected on AI-QCT evaluation vs QCA on a per-vessel and per-patient basis (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.73 and 0.73, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). False positive AI-QCT findings were noted in in 62 of 848 (7.3%) vessels (stenosis of ≥70% by AI-QCT and QCA of <70%); however, 41 (66.1%) of these had an FFR of <0.8.
CONCLUSIONS: A novel AI-based evaluation of coronary CTA enables rapid and accurate identification and exclusion of high-grade stenosis and with close agreement to blinded, core lab-interpreted quantitative coronary angiography. (Computed TomogRaphic Evaluation of Atherosclerotic DEtermiNants of Myocardial IsChEmia [CREDENCE]; NCT02173275).