Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Oct;102(4):631-640.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.30805. Epub 2023 Aug 14.

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

Miguel Nobre Menezes  1   2 , Beatriz Silva  1   2 , João Lourenço Silva  3 , Tiago Rodrigues  1   2 , João Silva Marques  1   2 , Cláudio Guerreiro  4 , João Pedro Guedes  5 , Manuel Oliveira-Santos  6   7 , Arlindo L Oliveira  3 , Fausto J Pinto  1   2
Affiliations

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

Miguel Nobre Menezes et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023 Oct.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; coronary angiography; coronary artery disease; deep learning; machine learning; percutaneous coronary intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Suzuki N, Asano T, Nakazawa G, et al. Clinical expert consensus document on quantitative coronary angiography from the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2020;35:105-116. doi:10.1007/S12928-020-00653-7
    1. Beauman GJ, Vogel RA. Accuracy of individual and panel visual interpretations of coronary arteriograms; implications for clinical decisions. JACC. 1990;16:108-113. doi:10.1016/0735-1097(90)90465-2
    1. Fischer JJ, Samady H, McPherson JA, et al. Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:210-215. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02456-6
    1. Nallamothu BK, Spertus JA, Lansky AJ, et al. Comparison of clinical interpretation with visual assessment and quantitative coronary angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice: the assessing angiography (A2) project. Circulation. 2013;127:1793-1800. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.001952
    1. Adjedj J, Xaplanteris P, Toth G, et al. Visual and quantitative assessment of coronary stenoses at angiography versus fractional flow reserve: the impact of risk factors. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(7):e006243. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.006243

LinkOut - more resources