CT ​EvaLuation ​by ​ARtificial ​Intelligence ​For ​Atherosclerosis, Stenosis and Vascular ​MorphologY ​(CLARIFY): ​A ​Multi-center, international study

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis evaluation by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is promising for coronary artery disease (CAD) risk stratification, but time consuming and requires high expertise. Artificial Intelligence (AI) applied to CCTA for comprehensive CAD assessment may overcome these limitations. We hypothesized AI aided analysis allows for rapid, accurate evaluation of vessel morphology and stenosis. METHODS: This was a multi-site study of 232 patients undergoing CCTA. Studies were analyzed by FDA-cleared software service that performs AI-driven coronary artery segmentation and labeling, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization with comparison to ground truth of consensus by three L3 readers. CCTAs were analyzed for: % maximal diameter stenosis, plaque volume and composition, presence of high-risk plaque and Coronary Artery Disease Reporting & Data System (CAD-RADS) category. RESULTS: AI performance was excellent for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as follows: >70% stenosis: 99.7%, 90.9%, 99.8%, 93.3%, 99.9%, respectively; >50% stenosis: 94.8%, 80.0%, 97.0, 80.0%, 97.0%, respectively. Bland-Altman plots depict agreement between expert reader and AI determined maximal diameter stenosis for per-vessel (mean difference -0.8%; 95% CI 13.8% to -15.3%) and per-patient (mean difference -2.3%; 95% CI 15.8% to -20.4%). L3 and AI agreed within one CAD-RADS category in 228/232 (98.3%) exams per-patient and 923/924 (99.9%) vessels on a per-vessel basis. There was a wide range of atherosclerosis in the coronary artery territories assessed by AI when stratified by CAD-RADS distribution. CONCLUSIONS: AI-aided approach to CCTA interpretation determines coronary stenosis and CAD-RADS category in close agreement with consensus of L3 expert readers. There was a wide range of atherosclerosis identified through AI.proofpublishe

a CLARIFY trial sub-study

Publisher Copyright: © 2022Background: The difference between expert level (L3) reader and artificial intelligence (AI) performance for quantifying coronary plaque and plaque components is unknown. Objective: This study evaluates the interobserver variability among expert readers for quantifying the volume of coronary plaque and plaque components on coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) using an artificial intelligence enabled quantitative CCTA analysis software as a reference (AI-QCT). Methods: This study uses CCTA imaging obtained from 232 patients enrolled in the CLARIFY (CT EvaLuation by ARtificial Intelligence For Atherosclerosis, Stenosis and Vascular MorphologY) study. Readers quantified overall plaque volume and the % breakdown of noncalcified plaque (NCP) and calcified plaque (CP) on a per vessel basis. Readers categorized high risk plaque (HRP) based on the presence of low-attenuation-noncalcified plaque (LA-NCP) and positive remodeling (PR; ≥1.10). All CCTAs were analyzed by an FDA-cleared software service that performs AI-driven plaque characterization and quantification (AI-QCT) for comparison to L3 readers. Reader generated analyses were compared among readers and to AI-QCT generated analyses. Results: When evaluating plaque volume on a per vessel basis, expert readers achieved moderate to high interobserver consistency with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.78 for a single reader score and 0.91 for mean scores. There was a moderate trend between readers 1, 2, and 3 and AI with spearman coefficients of 0.70, 0.68 and 0.74, respectively. There was high discordance between readers and AI plaque component analyses. When quantifying %NCP v. %CP, readers 1, 2, and 3 achieved a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.23, 0.34 and 0.24, respectively, compared to AI with a spearman coefficient of 0.38, 0.51, and 0.60, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient among readers for plaque composition assessment was 0.68. With respect to HRP, readers 1, 2, and 3 achieved a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.22, 0.26, and 0.17, respectively, and a spearman coefficient of 0.36, 0.35, and 0.44, respectively. Conclusion: Expert readers performed moderately well quantifying total plaque volumes with high consistency. However, there was both significant interobserver variability and high discordance with AI-QCT when quantifying plaque composition.publishersversionpublishe

Interobserver Variability Among Expert Readers Quantifying Plaque Volume and Plaque Characteristics on Coronary CT Angiography: A CLARIFY Trial Sub-Study

Background: The difference between expert level (L3) reader and artificial intelligence (AI) performance for quantifying coronary plaque and plaque components is unknown. Objective: This study evaluates the interobserver variability among expert readers for quantifying the volume of coronary plaque and plaque components on coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) using an artificial intelligence enabled quantitative CCTA analysis software as a reference (AI-QCT). Methods: This study uses CCTA imaging obtained from 232 patients enrolled in the CLARIFY (CT EvaLuation by ARtificial Intelligence For Atherosclerosis, Stenosis and Vascular MorphologY) study. Readers quantified overall plaque volume and the % breakdown of noncalcified plaque (NCP) and calcified plaque (CP) on a per vessel basis. Readers categorized high risk plaque (HRP) based on the presence of low-attenuation-noncalcified plaque (LA-NCP) and positive remodeling (PR; ≥1.10). All CCTAs were analyzed by an FDA-cleared software service that performs AI-driven plaque characterization and quantification (AI-QCT) for comparison to L3 readers. Reader generated analyses were compared among readers and to AI-QCT generated analyses. Results: When evaluating plaque volume on a per vessel basis, expert readers achieved moderate to high interobserver consistency with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.78 for a single reader score and 0.91 for mean scores. There was a moderate trend between readers 1, 2, and 3 and AI with spearman coefficients of 0.70, 0.68 and 0.74, respectively. There was high discordance between readers and AI plaque component analyses. When quantifying %NCP v. %CP, readers 1, 2, and 3 achieved a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.23, 0.34 and 0.24, respectively, compared to AI with a spearman coefficient of 0.38, 0.51, and 0.60, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient among readers for plaque composition assessment was 0.68. With respect to HRP, readers 1, 2, and 3 achieved a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.22, 0.26, and 0.17, respectively, and a spearman coefficient of 0.36, 0.35, and 0.44, respectively. Conclusion: Expert readers performed moderately well quantifying total plaque volumes with high consistency. However, there was both significant interobserver variability and high discordance with AI-QCT when quantifying plaque composition

Rationale and design of the CONFIRM2 (Quantitative COroNary CT Angiography Evaluation For Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational, Multicenter Registry) study.

BACKGROUND In the last 15 years, large registries and several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the diagnostic and prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Advances in CT scanner technology and developments of analytic tools now enable accurate quantification of coronary artery disease (CAD), including total coronary plaque volume (TPV) and low attenuation plaque volume (LAP). The primary aim of CONFIRM2, (Quantitative COroNary CT Angiography Evaluation For Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational, Multicenter Registry) is to perform comprehensive quantification of CCTA findings, including coronary, non-coronary cardiac, non-cardiac vascular, non-cardiac findings, and relate them to clinical variables and cardiovascular clinical outcomes. DESIGN CONFIRM2 is a multicenter, international observational cohort study designed to evaluate multidimensional associations between quantitative phenotype of cardiovascular disease and future adverse clinical outcomes in subjects undergoing clinically indicated CCTA. The targeted population is heterogenous and includes patients undergoing CCTA for atherosclerotic evaluation, valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease or pre-procedural evaluation. Automated software will be utilized for quantification of coronary plaque, stenosis, vascular morphology and cardiac structures for rapid and reproducible tissue characterization. Up to 30,000 patients will be included from up to 50 international multi-continental clinical CCTA sites and followed for 3-4 years. SUMMARY CONFIRM2 is one of the largest CCTA studies to establish the clinical value of a multiparametric approach to quantify the phenotype of cardiovascular disease by CCTA using automated imaging solutions

A CREDENCE Trial Substudy

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.OBJECTIVES: The study compared the performance for detection and grading of coronary stenoses using artificial intelligence-enabled quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography (AI-QCT) analyses to core lab-interpreted coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), core lab quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), and invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: Clinical reads of coronary CTA, especially by less experienced readers, may result in overestimation of coronary artery disease stenosis severity compared with expert interpretation. AI-based solutions applied to coronary CTA may overcome these limitations. 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).proofepub_ahead_of_prin

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

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The AuthorsObjectives: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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.publishersversionpublishe

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

Objectives: 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: 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: 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\u27s 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: 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 \u3c50% 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 (\u3c350 mg/ml 70.0%, 350-369 mg/ml 90.0%, 370-400 mg/ml 90.0%, \u3e400 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: 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: 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\u27s BMI or heart rate at time of scan affect the software\u27s 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