Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

Segmentation of X-ray coronary angiography with an artificial intelligence deep learning model: Impact in operator visual assessment of coronary stenosis severity

BACKGROUND

Visual assessment of the percentage diameter stenosis (%DSVE ) of lesions is essential in coronary angiography (CAG) interpretation. We have previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model capable of accurate CAG segmentation. We aim to compare operators' %DSVE in angiography versus AI-segmented images.

METHODS

Quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) %DS (%DSQCA ) was previously performed in our published validation dataset. Operators were asked to estimate %DSVE of lesions in angiography versus AI-segmented images in separate sessions and differences were assessed using angiography %DSQCA as reference.

RESULTS

A total of 123 lesions were included. %DSVE was significantly higher in both the angiography (77% ± 20% vs. 56% ± 13%, p < 0.001) and segmentation groups (59% ± 20% vs. 56% ± 13%, p < 0.001), with a much smaller absolute %DS difference in the latter. For lesions with %DSQCA of 50%-70% (60% ± 5%), an even higher discrepancy was found (angiography: 83% ± 13% vs. 60% ± 5%, p < 0.001; segmentation: 63% ± 15% vs. 60% ± 5%, p < 0.001). Similar, less pronounced, findings were observed for %DSQCA  < 50% lesions, but not %DSQCA  > 70% lesions. Agreement between %DSQCA /%DSVE across %DSQCA strata (<50%, 50%-70%, >70%) was approximately twice in the segmentation group (60.4% vs. 30.1%; p < 0.001). %DSVE inter-operator differences were smaller with segmentation.

CONCLUSION

%DSVE was much less discrepant with segmentation versus angiography. Overestimation of %DSQCA  < 70% lesions with angiography was especially common. Segmentation may reduce %DSVE overestimation and thus unwarranted revascularization.

Comparison of vessel fractional flow reserve with invasive resting full-cycle ratio in patients with intermediate coronary lesions

BACKGROUND

Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) is a novel angiography-derived index for the assessment of myocardial ischemia without the need for pressure wires and hyperemic agents. vFFR has demonstrated very good diagnostic performance compared with the hyperemic index fractional flow reserve (FFR). The aim of this study was to compare vFFR to the non-hyperemic pressure ratio resting full-cycle ratio (RFR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study of an all-comer cohort undergoing RFR assessment. Invasive coronary angiography was obtained without a dedicated vFFR acquisition protocol, and vFFR calculation was attempted in all vessels interrogated by RFR (1483 lesions of 1030 patients).

RESULTS

vFFR could be analyzed in 986 lesions from 705 patients. Median diameter stenosis was 37% (interquartile range (IQR): 30.0-44.0%), vFFR 0.86 (IQR: 0.81-0.91) and RFR 0.94 (IQR: (0.90-0.97). The correlation between vFFR and RFR was strong (r = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.74, p < 0.001). Using RFR ≤0.89 as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall diagnostic accuracy for vFFR were 77%, 93%, 77%, and 92% and 89%. vFFR yielded a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94). The good diagnostic performance of vFFR was confirmed among subgroups of patients with diabetes, severe aortic stenosis, female gender and lesions located in the left anterior descending artery.

CONCLUSION

vFFR has a high diagnostic performance taking RFR as the reference standard for evaluating the functional significance of coronary stenoses.

Angiography-derived assessment of coronary microcirculatory resistance in patients with suspected myocardial ischaemia and non-obstructive coronary arteries

BACKGROUND

Myocardial ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) represents a challenging and frequent, but largely underdiagnosed, condition.

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic value of angiography-derived coronary microcirculatory resistance in patients with INOCA syndrome.

METHODS

This is an investigator-driven, prospective and blinded study. The diagnostic yield of angiography-derived index of coronary microcirculatory resistance (angio-IMR) was investigated against thermodilution-derived IMR (thermo-IMR) in patients with clinically indicated coronary angiography due to suspected myocardial ischaemia and angiographically normal or non-obstructive coronary arteries. The angio-IMR was derived from resting angiograms (contrast-flow angio-IMR [cAngio-IMR]) by an expert analyst blinded to the thermo-IMR. An independent, blinded, physiology core laboratory analysed the raw intracoronary physiology data and provided the final thermo-IMR values.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients (108 coronary vessels) were analysed after fulfilling predefined inclusion criteria. Most patients were female (67%). Obstructive epicardial disease was angiographically (percent diameter stenosis <50%) and physiologically (fractional flow reserve>0.80) ruled out in all cases. Median thermo-IMR and cAngio-IMR were 16.6 (12.7, 23.0) and 16.8 (12.8, 23.1) units, respectively (median difference -0.31, 95% confidence interval: -1.53 to 1.00; p=0.654). cAngio-IMR showed good correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.76; p<0.001), agreement (mean bias 0.4), discriminatory power (area under the curve from the receiver operator characteristics 0.865; p<0.001) and accuracy (85%), compared to thermo-IMR (≥25 U).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating coronary microcirculatory resistance in patients with INOCA syndrome using cAngio-IMR is feasible and accurate. By circumventing the need of coronary instrumentation and hyperaemic drugs, this method may facilitate the assessment of coronary microcirculatory resistance in patients with suspected INOCA.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT04827498.

Comparison between the diagnostic performance of vessel fractional flow reserve and nonhyperemic pressure ratio for functionally significant coronary stenosis severity as assessed by fractional flow reserve

BACKGROUND

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure ratios (NHPRs) have been widely used to assess the functional severity of coronary stenosis. However, their measurement requires using a pressure wire, making their use in all patients difficult. The recently developed vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR), derived from three-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography, is expected to serve as a surrogate for pressure wire assessment.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on patients with intermediate coronary stenosis who underwent FFR and NHPR measurements. The vFFR and NHPR values were compared for diagnosing coronary stenosis as defined by an FFR of ≤0.80, and the number of patients not requiring wire-based assessment was estimated.

RESULTS

In a total of 90 lesions from 74 patients (median [SD] age 75 [12] years; men 80%), the median FFR was 0.78 (0.72-0.84), and 57% of these lesions (N = 51) exhibited an FFR of ≤0.80. vFFR provided high discrimination for coronary stenosis (area under the curve 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.90), which was comparable to that of NHPRs (p = 0.42). High diagnostic accuracy was consistently observed across a variety of clinical presentations (i.e., old age, diabetes, target coronary artery, and left ventricular hypertrophy) (p_interaction  > 0.05). In total, 55 lesions (61%) demonstrated positive or negative likelihood of coronary stenosis when vFFR was <0.73 (specificity 90%) or >0.87 (sensitivity 88%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

vFFR demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for detecting functionally significant coronary stenosis as evaluated by FFR. vFFR may be used as a surrogate for pressure wire assessment.

Diagnostic performance of quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve and resting full-cycle ratio in intermediate coronary lesions

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel angiography-derived index aimed to assess the functional relevance of coronary stenoses without pressure wires and adenosine. Good diagnostic yield with the hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been reported, while data on the comparison of QFR to non-hyperemic pressure ratios (NHPR) are scarce.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational and single-center study with a large population representative of the real practice, we assessed and compared the diagnostic performance of contrast flow (cQFR) and fixed flow (fQFR) QFR against the NHPR resting full-cyle ratio (RFR) using FFR as reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 626 lesions from 544 patients were investigated. Mean diameter stenosis, FFR, cQFR, fQFR and RFR were 44.8%, 0.842, 0.847, 0.857 and 0.912, respectively. The correlation between cQFR and FFR was stronger (r = 0.830, P < 0.001) compared to that between FFR and RFR (r = 0.777, P < 0.001) and between cQFR and RFR (r = 0.687, P < 0.001). Using FFR ≤0.80 as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall diagnostic accuracy for cQFR were 82%, 95%, 87%, 92%, and 91%, respectively. cQFR displayed a higher area under the curve (AUC) than fQFR and RFR (0.938 vs. 0.891 vs. 0.869, P < 0.01). The good diagnostic yield of cQFR appeared to be maintained in different clinical subsets including female gender, aortic valve stenosis and atrial fibrillation, and in different anatomical subsets including focal and non-focal lesions.

CONCLUSION

cQFR has a high and better diagnostic performance than the NHPR RFR in predicting FFR-based functional significance of coronary stenoses.