Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography

Atul Kapoor; Goldaa Mahajan; Aprajita Kapoor

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography

Atul Kapoor, Goldaa Mahajan, Aprajita Kapoor

Published in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research (Volume 6, Issue 1)

Received: 4 February 2022 Accepted: 24 February 2022 Published: 3 March 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Objectives: This was study was designed to compare the accuracy of estimation of coronary stenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease using artificial intelligence based technique and conventional cross sectional area method using hemodynamically significant stenosis based on CTFFR as the gold standard for significant ischemia. Background: Although detection of degree of stenosis on coronary angiography as well Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) forms the backbone of management plan of a patient with suspected coronary artery disease there is a discordance in the results between both the techniques for estimation of stenosis as well as 20-30% interobservor variation in the results in the stenosis estimation based on conventional angiography method. So a more robust method is needed using modern techniques like artificial intelligence to address this problem. Methods: CTA’s of 100 consecutive patients of stable coronary artery disease were evaluated for coronary stenosis on per vessel and per patient basis using conventional cross section method and using artificial intelligence with hemodynamic significant stenosis using CT FFR < 0.8 as the gold standard for ischemia and the results compared. Results: Cross sectional area method revealed significant stenosis > 50% in 184 (61.2%) vessels per vessel basis and in 65% on per patient basis while the AI method showed significant stenosis in all the 232 (77.2%) per vessels and in 89% per patient basis out of which 81% were hemodynamically significant. 18% of cases were not assessable by cross section method due to heavy vessel calcifications. Sensitivity and specificity on per patient basis by cross section method and AI method were 80%, 57% and 98% and 90% respectively with a false negative and positive of 19%, 42% by cross section method and 1.3%, 10% by AI method respectively with overall accuracy of 76% and 97% respectively of the two methods. Conclusion: AI method of estimation of coronary stenosis is more accurate and robust than conventional area estimation method in clinical practice especially when patients have higher vessel coronary calcium.

Published in	Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research (Volume 6, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
Page(s)	22-31
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

CT Angiography, Conventional Angiography, CTFFR

References

[1]	https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg95/resources/2019-surveillance-of-chest-pain-of-recent-onset-assessment-and-diagnosis-nice-guideline-cg95-pdf-8944464078277.
[2]	Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van Veer M, Klauss Y, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360 (3): 213-24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611.
[3]	Nielsen LH, Ortner N, Norgaard BL, Achenbach S, Leipsic J, Abdulla J. et al. The diagnostic accuracy and outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography vs. conventional functional testing in patients with stable angina pectoris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Hear J – Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 15 (9): 961-71. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu027.
[4]	D. G. Harrison, C. W. White, L. F. Hiratzka, et al. The value of lesion cross-sectional area determined by quantitative coronary angiography in assessing the physiologic significance of proximal left anterior descending coronary arterial stenosis Circulation, 69 (1984), pp. 1111-1119.
[5]	W. Wijns, P. W. Serruys, J. H. Reiber, et al. Quantitative angiography of the left anterior descending coronary artery: correlations with pressure gradient and results of exercise thallium scintigraphy Circulation, 71 (1985), pp. 273-279.
[6]	A. Takagi, Y. Tsurumi, Y. Ishii, K. Suzuki, M. Kawana, H. KasanukiClinical potential of intravascular ultrasound for physiological assessment of coronary stenosis: relationship between quantitative ultrasound tomography and pressure-derived fractional flow reserve Circulation, 100 (1999), pp. 250-255.
[7]	J. Detre, E. Wright, M. L. Murphy, T. Takaro Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms Circulation, 52 (1975), pp. 979-988.
[8]	L. M. Zir, S. W. Miller, R. E. Dinsmore, J. P. Gilbert, J. W. Harthorne Interobserver variability in coronary angiography Circulation, 53 (1976), pp. 627-632.
[9]	R. M. Fleming, R. L. Kirkeeide, R. W. Smalling, K. L. GouldPatterns in visual interpretation of coronary arteriograms as detected by quantitative coronary arteriography J Am Coll Cardiol, 18 (1991), pp. 945-951.
[10]	L. L Leape, R. E. Park, T. M. Bashore, J. K. Harrison, C. J. Davidson, R. H. Brook Effect of variability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms on the appropriateness of use of coronary revascularization procedures Am Heart J, 139 (2000), pp. 106-113.
[11]	D. Keane, J. Haase, C. J. Slager, et al. Comparative validation of quantitative coronary angiography systems: results and implications from a multicenter study using a standardized approach Circulation, 91 (1995), pp. 2174-2183.
[12]	Muzzarelli S, Suerder D, Murzilli R, et al. Predictors of disagreement between prospectively ECG-triggered dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography and conventional coronary angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2016 Jun. 85 (6): 1138-46.
[13]	Qi L, Tang LJ, Xu Y, et al. The diagnostic performance of coronary CT angiography for the assessment of coronary stenosis in calcified plaque. PLoS One. 2016. 11 (5): e0154852.
[14]	Dodd JD, Rieber J, Pomerantsev E, et al. Quantification of nonculprit coronary lesions: comparison of cardiac 64-MDCT and invasive coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug. 191 (2): 432-8.
[15]	Choi AD, Marques H, Kumar V, Griffin WF, Rahban H, Karslberg RP, Zeman R, Katz RJ, Earls JP. CT Evaluation by artificial intelligence for atherosclerosis, stenosis and vascular morphology (CLARIFY): A multi-centre, international study. J of cardiovascular Tomography 15 (2021) 470-476.
[16]	Bettencourt N, Rocha J, Carvalho M, Leite D, Toschke AM, Melica B, Santos L, Rodrigues A, Goncalves M, Braga P, Teixeira M, Simoes L, Rajagopalan S, Gama V (2009) Multislice computed tomography in the exclusion of coronary artery disease in patients with presurgical valve disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2: 306–313.
[17]	Scheffel H, Leschka S, Plass A, Vachenauer R, Gaemperli O, Garzoli E, Genoni M, Marincek B, Kaufmann P, Alkadhi H (2007) Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography for the preoperative detection of coronary artery disease in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation. Am J Cardiol 100 (4): 701 –706.
[18]	Meijboom WB, Mollet NR, Van Mieghem CA, Kluin J, Weustink AC, Pugliese F, Vourvouri E, Cademartiri F, Bogers AJ, Krestin GP, de Feyter PJ (2006) Preoperative computed tomography coronary angiography to detect significant coronary artery disease in patients referred for cardiac valve surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 48 (8): 1658–1665.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Atul Kapoor, Goldaa Mahajan, Aprajita Kapoor. (2022). Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography. Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research, 6(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Atul Kapoor; Goldaa Mahajan; Aprajita Kapoor. Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography. Cardiol. Cardiovasc. Res. 2022, 6(1), 22-31. doi: 10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Atul Kapoor, Goldaa Mahajan, Aprajita Kapoor. Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography. Cardiol Cardiovasc Res. 2022;6(1):22-31. doi: 10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14,
  author = {Atul Kapoor and Goldaa Mahajan and Aprajita Kapoor},
  title = {Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography},
  journal = {Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {22-31},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ccr.20220601.14},
  abstract = {Objectives: This was study was designed to compare the accuracy of estimation of coronary stenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease using artificial intelligence based technique and conventional cross sectional area method using hemodynamically significant stenosis based on CTFFR as the gold standard for significant ischemia. Background: Although detection of degree of stenosis on coronary angiography as well Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) forms the backbone of management plan of a patient with suspected coronary artery disease there is a discordance in the results between both the techniques for estimation of stenosis as well as 20-30% interobservor variation in the results in the stenosis estimation based on conventional angiography method. So a more robust method is needed using modern techniques like artificial intelligence to address this problem. Methods: CTA’s of 100 consecutive patients of stable coronary artery disease were evaluated for coronary stenosis on per vessel and per patient basis using conventional cross section method and using artificial intelligence with hemodynamic significant stenosis using CT FFR Results: Cross sectional area method revealed significant stenosis > 50% in 184 (61.2%) vessels per vessel basis and in 65% on per patient basis while the AI method showed significant stenosis in all the 232 (77.2%) per vessels and in 89% per patient basis out of which 81% were hemodynamically significant. 18% of cases were not assessable by cross section method due to heavy vessel calcifications. Sensitivity and specificity on per patient basis by cross section method and AI method were 80%, 57% and 98% and 90% respectively with a false negative and positive of 19%, 42% by cross section method and 1.3%, 10% by AI method respectively with overall accuracy of 76% and 97% respectively of the two methods. Conclusion: AI method of estimation of coronary stenosis is more accurate and robust than conventional area estimation method in clinical practice especially when patients have higher vessel coronary calcium.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography
AU  - Atul Kapoor
AU  - Goldaa Mahajan
AU  - Aprajita Kapoor
Y1  - 2022/03/03
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
T2  - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research
JF  - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research
JO  - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research
SP  - 22
EP  - 31
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8914
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
AB  - Objectives: This was study was designed to compare the accuracy of estimation of coronary stenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease using artificial intelligence based technique and conventional cross sectional area method using hemodynamically significant stenosis based on CTFFR as the gold standard for significant ischemia. Background: Although detection of degree of stenosis on coronary angiography as well Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) forms the backbone of management plan of a patient with suspected coronary artery disease there is a discordance in the results between both the techniques for estimation of stenosis as well as 20-30% interobservor variation in the results in the stenosis estimation based on conventional angiography method. So a more robust method is needed using modern techniques like artificial intelligence to address this problem. Methods: CTA’s of 100 consecutive patients of stable coronary artery disease were evaluated for coronary stenosis on per vessel and per patient basis using conventional cross section method and using artificial intelligence with hemodynamic significant stenosis using CT FFR Results: Cross sectional area method revealed significant stenosis > 50% in 184 (61.2%) vessels per vessel basis and in 65% on per patient basis while the AI method showed significant stenosis in all the 232 (77.2%) per vessels and in 89% per patient basis out of which 81% were hemodynamically significant. 18% of cases were not assessable by cross section method due to heavy vessel calcifications. Sensitivity and specificity on per patient basis by cross section method and AI method were 80%, 57% and 98% and 90% respectively with a false negative and positive of 19%, 42% by cross section method and 1.3%, 10% by AI method respectively with overall accuracy of 76% and 97% respectively of the two methods. Conclusion: AI method of estimation of coronary stenosis is more accurate and robust than conventional area estimation method in clinical practice especially when patients have higher vessel coronary calcium.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Atul Kapoor

Department of Radiology, Advanced Diagnostics and Institute of Imaging, Amritsar, India
Goldaa Mahajan

Department of Radiology, Advanced Diagnostics and Institute of Imaging, Amritsar, India
Aprajita Kapoor

Department of Radiology, Advanced Diagnostics and Institute of Imaging, Amritsar, India

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Atul Kapoor, Goldaa Mahajan, Aprajita Kapoor. (2022). Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography. Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research, 6(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Atul Kapoor; Goldaa Mahajan; Aprajita Kapoor. Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography. Cardiol. Cardiovasc. Res. 2022, 6(1), 22-31. doi: 10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Atul Kapoor, Goldaa Mahajan, Aprajita Kapoor. Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography. Cardiol Cardiovasc Res. 2022;6(1):22-31. doi: 10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14,
  author = {Atul Kapoor and Goldaa Mahajan and Aprajita Kapoor},
  title = {Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography},
  journal = {Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research},
  volume = {6},
  number = {1},
  pages = {22-31},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ccr.20220601.14},
  abstract = {Objectives: This was study was designed to compare the accuracy of estimation of coronary stenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease using artificial intelligence based technique and conventional cross sectional area method using hemodynamically significant stenosis based on CTFFR as the gold standard for significant ischemia. Background: Although detection of degree of stenosis on coronary angiography as well Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) forms the backbone of management plan of a patient with suspected coronary artery disease there is a discordance in the results between both the techniques for estimation of stenosis as well as 20-30% interobservor variation in the results in the stenosis estimation based on conventional angiography method. So a more robust method is needed using modern techniques like artificial intelligence to address this problem. Methods: CTA’s of 100 consecutive patients of stable coronary artery disease were evaluated for coronary stenosis on per vessel and per patient basis using conventional cross section method and using artificial intelligence with hemodynamic significant stenosis using CT FFR Results: Cross sectional area method revealed significant stenosis > 50% in 184 (61.2%) vessels per vessel basis and in 65% on per patient basis while the AI method showed significant stenosis in all the 232 (77.2%) per vessels and in 89% per patient basis out of which 81% were hemodynamically significant. 18% of cases were not assessable by cross section method due to heavy vessel calcifications. Sensitivity and specificity on per patient basis by cross section method and AI method were 80%, 57% and 98% and 90% respectively with a false negative and positive of 19%, 42% by cross section method and 1.3%, 10% by AI method respectively with overall accuracy of 76% and 97% respectively of the two methods. Conclusion: AI method of estimation of coronary stenosis is more accurate and robust than conventional area estimation method in clinical practice especially when patients have higher vessel coronary calcium.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparison of Hemodynamic Significant Coronary Stenosis Using Artificial Intelligence and Conventional Cross Sectional Area in CT Coronary Angiography
AU  - Atul Kapoor
AU  - Goldaa Mahajan
AU  - Aprajita Kapoor
Y1  - 2022/03/03
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
T2  - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research
JF  - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research
JO  - Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research
SP  - 22
EP  - 31
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8914
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ccr.20220601.14
AB  - Objectives: This was study was designed to compare the accuracy of estimation of coronary stenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease using artificial intelligence based technique and conventional cross sectional area method using hemodynamically significant stenosis based on CTFFR as the gold standard for significant ischemia. Background: Although detection of degree of stenosis on coronary angiography as well Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) forms the backbone of management plan of a patient with suspected coronary artery disease there is a discordance in the results between both the techniques for estimation of stenosis as well as 20-30% interobservor variation in the results in the stenosis estimation based on conventional angiography method. So a more robust method is needed using modern techniques like artificial intelligence to address this problem. Methods: CTA’s of 100 consecutive patients of stable coronary artery disease were evaluated for coronary stenosis on per vessel and per patient basis using conventional cross section method and using artificial intelligence with hemodynamic significant stenosis using CT FFR Results: Cross sectional area method revealed significant stenosis > 50% in 184 (61.2%) vessels per vessel basis and in 65% on per patient basis while the AI method showed significant stenosis in all the 232 (77.2%) per vessels and in 89% per patient basis out of which 81% were hemodynamically significant. 18% of cases were not assessable by cross section method due to heavy vessel calcifications. Sensitivity and specificity on per patient basis by cross section method and AI method were 80%, 57% and 98% and 90% respectively with a false negative and positive of 19%, 42% by cross section method and 1.3%, 10% by AI method respectively with overall accuracy of 76% and 97% respectively of the two methods. Conclusion: AI method of estimation of coronary stenosis is more accurate and robust than conventional area estimation method in clinical practice especially when patients have higher vessel coronary calcium.
VL  - 6
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download