The effect of scan and patient parameters on the diagnostic performance of AI for detecting coronary stenosis on coronary CT angiography.


Journal

Clinical imaging
ISSN: 1873-4499
Titre abrégé: Clin Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8911831

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Historique:
received: 05 10 2021
revised: 21 01 2022
accepted: 24 01 2022
pubmed: 27 2 2022
medline: 9 3 2022
entrez: 26 2 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scanning, scan preparation, contrast, and patient based parameters influence the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) based analysis software for identifying coronary lesions with ≥50% stenosis. CCTA is a noninvasive imaging modality that provides diagnostic and prognostic benefit to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of AI enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software enhances our diagnostic and prognostic ability, however, it is currently unclear whether software performance is influenced by CCTA scanning parameters. CCTA and quantitative coronary CT (QCT) data from 303 stable patients (64 ± 10 years, 71% male) from the derivation arm of the CREDENCE Trial were retrospectively analyzed using an FDA-cleared cloud-based software that performs AI-enabled coronary segmentation, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization, and stenosis determination. The algorithm's diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for detecting coronary lesions of ≥50% stenosis were determined based on concordance with QCA measurements and subsequently compared across scanning parameters (including scanner vendor, model, single vs dual source, tube voltage, dose length product, gating technique, timing method), scan preparation technique (use of beta blocker, use and dose of nitroglycerin), contrast administration parameters (contrast type, infusion rate, iodine concentration, contrast volume) and patient parameters (heart rate and BMI). Within the patient cohort, 13% demonstrated ≥50% stenosis in 3 vessel territories, 21% in 2 vessel territories, 35% in 1 vessel territory while 32% had <50% stenosis in all vessel territories evaluated by QCA. Average AI analysis time was 10.3 ± 2.7 min. On a per vessel basis, there were significant differences only in sensitivity for ≥50% stenosis based on contrast type (iso-osmolar 70.0% vs non isoosmolar 92.1% p = 0.0345) and iodine concentration (<350 mg/ml 70.0%, 350-369 mg/ml 90.0%, 370-400 mg/ml 90.0%, >400 mg/ml 95.2%; p = 0.0287) in the context of low injection flow rates. On a per patient basis there were no significant differences in AI diagnostic performance measures across all measured scanner, scan technique, patient preparation, contrast, and individual patient parameters. The diagnostic performance of AI-QCT analysis software for detecting moderate to high grade stenosis are unaffected by commonly used CCTA scanning parameters and across a range of common scanning, scanner, contrast and patient variables. An AI-enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software has been validated as an effective tool for the identification, quantification and characterization of coronary plaque and stenosis through comparison to blinded expert readers and quantitative coronary angiography. However, it is unclear whether CCTA screening parameters related to scanner parameters, scan technique, contrast volume and rate, radiation dose, or a patient's BMI or heart rate at time of scan affect the software's diagnostic measures for detection of moderate to high grade stenosis. AI performance measures were unaffected across a broad range of commonly encountered scanner, patient preparation, scan technique, intravenous contrast and patient parameters.

Sections du résumé

OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scanning, scan preparation, contrast, and patient based parameters influence the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) based analysis software for identifying coronary lesions with ≥50% stenosis.
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
CCTA is a noninvasive imaging modality that provides diagnostic and prognostic benefit to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of AI enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software enhances our diagnostic and prognostic ability, however, it is currently unclear whether software performance is influenced by CCTA scanning parameters.
METHODS METHODS
CCTA and quantitative coronary CT (QCT) data from 303 stable patients (64 ± 10 years, 71% male) from the derivation arm of the CREDENCE Trial were retrospectively analyzed using an FDA-cleared cloud-based software that performs AI-enabled coronary segmentation, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization, and stenosis determination. The algorithm's diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for detecting coronary lesions of ≥50% stenosis were determined based on concordance with QCA measurements and subsequently compared across scanning parameters (including scanner vendor, model, single vs dual source, tube voltage, dose length product, gating technique, timing method), scan preparation technique (use of beta blocker, use and dose of nitroglycerin), contrast administration parameters (contrast type, infusion rate, iodine concentration, contrast volume) and patient parameters (heart rate and BMI).
RESULTS RESULTS
Within the patient cohort, 13% demonstrated ≥50% stenosis in 3 vessel territories, 21% in 2 vessel territories, 35% in 1 vessel territory while 32% had <50% stenosis in all vessel territories evaluated by QCA. Average AI analysis time was 10.3 ± 2.7 min. On a per vessel basis, there were significant differences only in sensitivity for ≥50% stenosis based on contrast type (iso-osmolar 70.0% vs non isoosmolar 92.1% p = 0.0345) and iodine concentration (<350 mg/ml 70.0%, 350-369 mg/ml 90.0%, 370-400 mg/ml 90.0%, >400 mg/ml 95.2%; p = 0.0287) in the context of low injection flow rates. On a per patient basis there were no significant differences in AI diagnostic performance measures across all measured scanner, scan technique, patient preparation, contrast, and individual patient parameters.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The diagnostic performance of AI-QCT analysis software for detecting moderate to high grade stenosis are unaffected by commonly used CCTA scanning parameters and across a range of common scanning, scanner, contrast and patient variables.
CONDENSED ABSTRACT CONCLUSIONS
An AI-enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software has been validated as an effective tool for the identification, quantification and characterization of coronary plaque and stenosis through comparison to blinded expert readers and quantitative coronary angiography. However, it is unclear whether CCTA screening parameters related to scanner parameters, scan technique, contrast volume and rate, radiation dose, or a patient's BMI or heart rate at time of scan affect the software's diagnostic measures for detection of moderate to high grade stenosis. AI performance measures were unaffected across a broad range of commonly encountered scanner, patient preparation, scan technique, intravenous contrast and patient parameters.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35217284
pii: S0899-7071(22)00025-0
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.01.016
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

149-158

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Rebecca A Jonas (RA)

Department of Internal Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Emil Barkovich (E)

Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.

Andrew D Choi (AD)

Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.

William F Griffin (WF)

Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.

Joanna Riess (J)

Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.

Hugo Marques (H)

Nova Medical School - Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Lisboa, Portugal.

Hyuk-Jae Chang (HJ)

Division of Cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital and Severance Biomedical Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, South Korea.

Jung Hyun Choi (JH)

Ontact Health, Inc., Seoul, South Korea.

Joon-Hyung Doh (JH)

Division of Cardiology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, South Korea.

Ae-Young Her (AY)

Kang Won National University Hospital, Chuncheon, South Korea.

Bon-Kwon Koo (BK)

Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

Chang-Wook Nam (CW)

Cardiovascular Center, Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, South Korea.

Hyung-Bok Park (HB)

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, International St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon, South Korea.

Sang-Hoon Shin (SH)

National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, South Korea.

Jason Cole (J)

Mobile Cardiology Associates, Mobile, AL, USA.

Alessia Gimelli (A)

Department of Imaging, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Pisa, Italy.

Muhammad Akram Khan (MA)

Cardiac Center of Texas, McKinney, TX, USA.

Bin Lu (B)

State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China.

Yang Gao (Y)

State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China.

Faisal Nabi (F)

Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

Ryo Nakazato (R)

Cardiovascular Center, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

U Joseph Schoepf (UJ)

Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Roel S Driessen (RS)

Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Michiel J Bom (MJ)

Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Randall C Thompson (RC)

St. Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, USA.

James J Jang (JJ)

Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.

Michael Ridner (M)

Heart Center Research, LLC, Huntsville, AL, USA.

Chris Rowan (C)

Renown Heart and Vascular Institute, Reno, NV, USA.

Erick Avelar (E)

Oconee Heart and Vascular Center at St Mary's Hospital, Athens, GA, USA.

Philippe Généreux (P)

Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute at Morristown Medical Center, Morristown, NJ, USA.

Paul Knaapen (P)

Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Guus A de Waard (GA)

Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Gianluca Pontone (G)

Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Daniele Andreini (D)

Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Marco Guglielmo (M)

Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Mouaz H Al-Mallah (MH)

Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.

Robert S Jennings (RS)

Cleerly Inc, New York, NY, USA.

Tami R Crabtree (TR)

Cleerly Inc, New York, NY, USA.

James P Earls (JP)

Department of Radiology and Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; Cleerly Inc, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: jearls@mfa.gwu.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH