Development and validation of AI-derived segmentation of four-chamber cine cardiac magnetic resonance

Background: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in the four-chamber plane offers comprehensive insight into the volumetrics of the heart. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model of time-resolved segmentation using the four-chamber cine.   Methods: A fully automated deep learning algorithm was trained using retrospective multicentre and multivendor data of 814 subjects. Validation, reproducibility, and mortality prediction were evaluated on an independent cohort of 101 subjects.   Results: The mean age of the validation cohort was 54 years, and 66 (65%) were males. Left and right heart parameters demonstrated strong correlations between automated and manual analysis, with a ρ of 0.91−0.98 and 0.89−0.98, respectively, with minimal bias. All AI four-chamber volumetrics in repeatability analysis demonstrated high correlation (ρ = 0.99−1.00) and no bias. Automated four-chamber analysis underestimated both left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes compared to ground-truth short-axis cine analysis. Two correction factors for LV and RV four-chamber analysis were proposed based on systematic bias. After applying the correction factors, a strong correlation and minimal bias for LV volumetrics were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 6.75 years, 16 patients died. On stepwise multivariable analysis, left atrial ejection fraction demonstrated an independent association with death in both manual (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.003) and AI analyses (HR = 0.96, p < 0.001).   Conclusion: Fully automated four-chamber CMR is feasible, reproducible, and has the same real-world prognostic value as manual analysis. LV volumes by four-chamber segmentation were comparable to short-axis volumetric assessment

Training and clinical testing of artificial intelligence derived right atrial cardiovascular magnetic resonance measurements

Background: Right atrial (RA) area predicts mortality in patients with pulmonary hypertension, and is recommended by the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society pulmonary hypertension guidelines. The advent of deep learning may allow more reliable measurement of RA areas to improve clinical assessments. The aim of this study was to automate cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) RA area measurements and evaluate the clinical utility by assessing repeatability, correlation with invasive haemodynamics and prognostic value. Methods: A deep learning RA area CMR contouring model was trained in a multicentre cohort of 365 patients with pulmonary hypertension, left ventricular pathology and healthy subjects. Inter-study repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) and agreement of contours (DICE similarity coefficient (DSC)) were assessed in a prospective cohort (n = 36). Clinical testing and mortality prediction was performed in n = 400 patients that were not used in the training nor prospective cohort, and the correlation of automatic and manual RA measurements with invasive haemodynamics assessed in n = 212/400. Radiologist quality control (QC) was performed in the ASPIRE registry, n = 3795 patients. The primary QC observer evaluated all the segmentations and recorded them as satisfactory, suboptimal or failure. A second QC observer analysed a random subcohort to assess QC agreement (n = 1018). Results: All deep learning RA measurements showed higher interstudy repeatability (ICC 0.91 to 0.95) compared to manual RA measurements (1st observer ICC 0.82 to 0.88, 2nd observer ICC 0.88 to 0.91). DSC showed high agreement comparing automatic artificial intelligence and manual CMR readers. Maximal RA area mean and standard deviation (SD) DSC metric for observer 1 vs observer 2, automatic measurements vs observer 1 and automatic measurements vs observer 2 is 92.4 ± 3.5 cm2, 91.2 ± 4.5 cm2 and 93.2 ± 3.2 cm2, respectively. Minimal RA area mean and SD DSC metric for observer 1 vs observer 2, automatic measurements vs observer 1 and automatic measurements vs observer 2 was 89.8 ± 3.9 cm2, 87.0 ± 5.8 cm2 and 91.8 ± 4.8 cm2. Automatic RA area measurements all showed moderate correlation with invasive parameters (r = 0.45 to 0.66), manual (r = 0.36 to 0.57). Maximal RA area could accurately predict elevated mean RA pressure low and high-risk thresholds (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve artificial intelligence = 0.82/0.87 vs manual = 0.78/0.83), and predicted mortality similar to manual measurements, both p < 0.01. In the QC evaluation, artificial intelligence segmentations were suboptimal at 108/3795 and a low failure rate of 16/3795. In a subcohort (n = 1018), agreement by two QC observers was excellent, kappa 0.84. Conclusion: Automatic artificial intelligence CMR derived RA size and function are accurate, have excellent repeatability, moderate associations with invasive haemodynamics and predict mortality