Machine Learning From Quantitative Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Predicts Fractional Flow Reserve-Defined Ischemia and Impaired Myocardial Blood Flow

BACKGROUND

A pathophysiological interplay exists between plaque morphology and coronary physiology. Machine learning (ML) is increasingly being applied to coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for cardiovascular risk stratification. We sought to assess the performance of a ML score integrating CCTA-based quantitative plaque features for predicting vessel-specific ischemia by invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) and impaired myocardial blood flow (MBF) by positron emission tomography (PET).

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial (Prospective Comparison of Cardiac Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography [CT]' Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography/CT Perfusion Imaging and CT Coronary Angiography with Invasive Coronary Angiography) included 208 patients with suspected coronary artery disease who prospectively underwent CCTA' [15O]H2O PET, and invasive FFR. Plaque quantification from CCTA was performed using semiautomated software. An ML algorithm trained on the prospective NXT trial (484 vessels) was used to develop a ML score for the prediction of ischemia (FFR≤0.80), which was then evaluated in 581 vessels from the PACIFIC trial. Thereafter, the ML score was applied for predicting impaired hyperemic MBF (≤2.30 mL/min per g) from corresponding PET scans. The performance of the ML score was compared with CCTA reads and noninvasive FFR derived from CCTA (FFRCT).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine (23.9%) vessels had FFR-defined ischemia, and 195 (33.6%) vessels had impaired hyperemic MBF. For the prediction of FFR-defined ischemia, the ML score yielded an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.92, which was significantly higher than that of visual stenosis grade (0.84; P<0.001) and comparable with that of FFRCT (0.93; P=0.34). Quantitative percent diameter stenosis and low-density noncalcified plaque volume had the greatest ML feature importance for predicting FFR-defined ischemia. When applied for impaired MBF prediction, the ML score exhibited an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.80; significantly higher than visual stenosis grade (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.74; P=0.02) and comparable with FFRCT (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve 0.77; P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

An externally validated ML score integrating CCTA-based quantitative plaque features accurately predicts FFR-defined ischemia and impaired MBF by PET, performing superiorly to standard CCTA stenosis evaluation and comparably to FFRCT.

Handling missing values in machine learning to predict patient-specific risk of adverse cardiac events: Insights from REFINE SPECT registry

BACKGROUND

Machine learning (ML) models can improve prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), but in clinical practice some values may be missing. We evaluated the influence of missing values in ML models for patient-specific prediction of MACE risk.

METHODS

We included 20,179 patients from the multicenter REFINE SPECT registry with MACE follow-up data. We evaluated seven methods for handling missing values: 1) removal of variables with missing values (ML-Remove), 2) imputation with median and unique category for continuous and categorical variables, respectively (ML-Traditional), 3) unique category for missing variables (ML-Unique), 4) cluster-based imputation (ML-Cluster), 5) regression-based imputation (ML-Regression), 6) missRanger imputation (ML-MR), and 7) multiple imputation (ML-MICE). We trained ML models with full data and simulated missing values in testing patients. Prediction performance was evaluated using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with a model without missing values (ML-All), expert visual diagnosis and total perfusion deficit (TPD).

RESULTS

During mean follow-up of 4.7 ± 1.5 years, 3,541 patients experienced at least one MACE (3.7% annualized risk). ML-All (reference model-no missing values) had AUC 0.799 for MACE risk prediction. All seven models with missing values had lower AUC (ML-Remove: 0.778, ML-MICE: 0.774, ML-Cluster: 0.771, ML-Traditional: 0.771, ML-Regression: 0.770, ML-MR: 0.766, and ML-Unique: 0.766; p < 0.01 for ML-Remove vs remaining methods). Stress TPD (AUC 0.698) and visual diagnosis (0.681) had the lowest AUCs.

CONCLUSION

Missing values reduce the accuracy of ML models when predicting MACE risk. Removing variables with missing values and retraining the model may yield superior patient-level prediction performance.

Deep learning-enabled coronary CT angiography for plaque and stenosis quantification and cardiac risk prediction: an international multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic plaque quantification from coronary CT angiography (CCTA) enables accurate assessment of coronary artery disease burden and prognosis. We sought to develop and validate a deep learning system for CCTA-derived measures of plaque volume and stenosis severity.

METHODS

This international, multicentre study included nine cohorts of patients undergoing CCTA at 11 sites, who were assigned into training and test sets. Data were retrospectively collected on patients with a wide range of clinical presentations of coronary artery disease who underwent CCTA between Nov 18, 2010, and Jan 25, 2019. A novel deep learning convolutional neural network was trained to segment coronary plaque in 921 patients (5045 lesions). The deep learning network was then applied to an independent test set, which included an external validation cohort of 175 patients (1081 lesions) and 50 patients (84 lesions) assessed by intravascular ultrasound within 1 month of CCTA. We evaluated the prognostic value of deep learning-based plaque measurements for fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (our primary outcome) in 1611 patients from the prospective SCOT-HEART trial, assessed as dichotomous variables using multivariable Cox regression analysis, with adjustment for the ASSIGN clinical risk score.

FINDINGS

In the overall test set, there was excellent or good agreement, respectively, between deep learning and expert reader measurements of total plaque volume (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0·964) and percent diameter stenosis (ICC 0·879; both p<0·0001). When compared with intravascular ultrasound, there was excellent agreement for deep learning total plaque volume (ICC 0·949) and minimal luminal area (ICC 0·904). The mean per-patient deep learning plaque analysis time was 5·65 s (SD 1·87) versus 25·66 min (6·79) taken by experts. Over a median follow-up of 4·7 years (IQR 4·0-5·7), myocardial infarction occurred in 41 (2·5%) of 1611 patients from the SCOT-HEART trial. A deep learning-based total plaque volume of 238·5 mm3 or higher was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR] 5·36, 95% CI 1·70-16·86; p=0·0042) after adjustment for the presence of deep learning-based obstructive stenosis (HR 2·49, 1·07-5·50; p=0·0089) and the ASSIGN clinical risk score (HR 1·01, 0·99-1·04; p=0·35).

INTERPRETATION

Our novel, externally validated deep learning system provides rapid measurements of plaque volume and stenosis severity from CCTA that agree closely with expert readers and intravascular ultrasound, and could have prognostic value for future myocardial infarction.

FUNDING

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Miriam & Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation.

Deep learning-based plaque quantification from coronary computed tomography angiography: external validation and comparison with intravascular ultrasound

Background

Atherosclerotic plaque quantification from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) enables accurate assessment of coronary artery disease burden, progression, and prognosis. However, quantitative plaque analysis is time-consuming and requires high expertise. We sought to develop and externally validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based deep learning (DL) approach for CTA-derived measures of plaque volume and stenosis severity. We compared the performance of DL to expert readers and the gold standard of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS).

Methods

This was a multicenter study of patients undergoing coronary CTA at 11 sites, with software-based quantitative plaque measurements performed at a per-lesion level by expert readers. AI-based plaque analysis was performed by a DL novel convolutional neural network which automatically segmented the coronary artery wall, lumen, and plaque for the computation of plaque volume and stenosis severity. Using expert measurements as ground truth, the DL algorithm was trained on 887 patients (4,686 lesions). Thereafter, the algorithm was applied to an independent test set of 221 patients (1,234 lesions), which included an external validation cohort of 171 patients from the SCOT-HEART (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart) trial as well as 50 patients who underwent IVUS within one month of CTA. We report the performance of AI-based plaque analysis in the independent test set.

Results

Within the external validation cohort, there was excellent agreement between DL and expert reader measurements of total plaque volume (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.876), noncalcified plaque volume (ICC 0.869), and percent diameter stenosis (ICC 0.850; all p&lt;0.001). When compared with IVUS, there was excellent agreement for DL total plaque volume (ICC 0.945), total plaque burden (ICC 0.853), minimal luminal area (ICC 0.864), and percent area stenosis (ICC 0.805; all p&lt;0.001); with strong correlation between DL and IVUS for total plaque volume (r=0.915; p&lt;0.001; Figure). The average DL plaque analysis time was 20 seconds per patient, compared with 25–30 minutes taken by experts.

Conclusions

AI-based plaque quantification from coronary CTA using an externally validated DL approach enables rapid measurements of plaque volume and stenosis severity in close agreement with expert readers and IVUS.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, United States