Alan C Kwan1, Priscilla A McElhinney1, Balaji K Tamarappoo1, Sebastien Cadet1, Cecilia Hurtado1, Robert J H Miller1,2, Donghee Han1, Yuka Otaki1, Evann Eisenberg1, Joseph E Ebinger1, Piotr J Slomka1, Victor Y Cheng3,4, Daniel S Berman1, Damini Dey5. 1. Departments of Imaging, Medicine, Smidt Heart Institute and Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 116 N Robertson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. 2. Department of Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Department of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Imaging, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Oklahoma Heart Institute, Tulsa, OK, USA. 5. Departments of Imaging, Medicine, Smidt Heart Institute and Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 116 N Robertson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. damini.dey@cshs.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The machine learning ischemia risk score (ML-IRS) is a machine learning-based algorithm designed to identify hemodynamically significant coronary disease using quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). The purpose of this study was to examine whether the ML-IRS can predict revascularization in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) after CCTA. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective dual-center registry of sequential patients undergoing CCTA followed by ICA within 3 months, referred from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department settings (n = 352, age 63 ± 10 years, 68% male). The primary outcome was revascularization by either percutaneous coronary revascularization or coronary artery bypass grafting. Blinded readers performed semi-automated quantitative coronary plaque analysis. The ML-IRS was automatically computed. Relationships between clinical risk factors, coronary plaque features, and ML-IRS with revascularization were examined. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 352 subjects with 1056 analyzable vessels. The ML-IRS ranged between 0 and 81% with a median of 18.7% (6.4-34.8). Revascularization was performed in 26% of vessels. Vessels receiving revascularization had higher ML-IRS (33.6% (21.1-55.0) versus 13.0% (4.5-29.1), p < 0.0001), as well as higher contrast density difference, and total, non-calcified, calcified, and low-density plaque burden. ML-IRS, when added to a traditional risk model based on clinical data and stenosis to predict revascularization, resulted in increased area under the curve from 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.72) to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.81) (p < 0.0001), with an overall continuous net reclassification improvement of 0.636 (95% CI: 0.503-0.769; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ML-IRS from quantitative coronary CT angiography improved the prediction of future revascularization and can potentially identify patients likely to receive revascularization if referred to cardiac catheterization. KEY POINTS: • Machine learning ischemia risk from quantitative coronary CT angiography was significantly higher in patients who received revascularization versus those who did not receive revascularization. • The machine learning ischemia risk score was significantly higher in patients with invasive fractional flow ≤ 0.8 versus those with > 0.8. • The machine learning ischemia risk score improved the prediction of future revascularization significantly when added to a standard prediction model including stenosis.
OBJECTIVES: The machine learning ischemia risk score (ML-IRS) is a machine learning-based algorithm designed to identify hemodynamically significant coronary disease using quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). The purpose of this study was to examine whether the ML-IRS can predict revascularization in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) after CCTA. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective dual-center registry of sequential patients undergoing CCTA followed by ICA within 3 months, referred from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department settings (n = 352, age 63 ± 10 years, 68% male). The primary outcome was revascularization by either percutaneous coronary revascularization or coronary artery bypass grafting. Blinded readers performed semi-automated quantitative coronary plaque analysis. The ML-IRS was automatically computed. Relationships between clinical risk factors, coronary plaque features, and ML-IRS with revascularization were examined. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 352 subjects with 1056 analyzable vessels. The ML-IRS ranged between 0 and 81% with a median of 18.7% (6.4-34.8). Revascularization was performed in 26% of vessels. Vessels receiving revascularization had higher ML-IRS (33.6% (21.1-55.0) versus 13.0% (4.5-29.1), p < 0.0001), as well as higher contrast density difference, and total, non-calcified, calcified, and low-density plaque burden. ML-IRS, when added to a traditional risk model based on clinical data and stenosis to predict revascularization, resulted in increased area under the curve from 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65-0.72) to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.81) (p < 0.0001), with an overall continuous net reclassification improvement of 0.636 (95% CI: 0.503-0.769; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ML-IRS from quantitative coronary CT angiography improved the prediction of future revascularization and can potentially identify patients likely to receive revascularization if referred to cardiac catheterization. KEY POINTS: • Machine learning ischemia risk from quantitative coronary CT angiography was significantly higher in patients who received revascularization versus those who did not receive revascularization. • The machine learning ischemia risk score was significantly higher in patients with invasive fractional flow ≤ 0.8 versus those with > 0.8. • The machine learning ischemia risk score improved the prediction of future revascularization significantly when added to a standard prediction model including stenosis.
Authors: Rushi V Parikh; Grace Liu; Mary E Plomondon; Thomas S G Sehested; Mark A Hlatky; Stephen W Waldo; William F Fearon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Eric D Peterson; David Dai; J Matthew Brennan; Rita F Redberg; H Vernon Anderson; Ralph G Brindis; Pamela S Douglas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Victor Y Cheng; Daniel S Berman; Alan Rozanski; Allison M Dunning; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Matthew J Budoff; Filippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; Benjamin J W Chow; Augustin Delago; Millie Gomez; Martin Hadamitzky; Jörg Hausleiter; Ronald P Karlsberg; Philipp Kaufmann; Fay Y Lin; Erica Maffei; Gilbert L Raff; Todd C Villines; Leslee J Shaw; James K Min Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michaela M Hell; Manish Motwani; Yuka Otaki; Sebastien Cadet; Heidi Gransar; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Jacob Valk; Piotr J Slomka; Victor Y Cheng; Alan Rozanski; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Sean Hayes; Stephan Achenbach; Daniel S Berman; Damini Dey Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: David E Newby; Philip D Adamson; Colin Berry; Nicholas A Boon; Marc R Dweck; Marcus Flather; John Forbes; Amanda Hunter; Stephanie Lewis; Scott MacLean; Nicholas L Mills; John Norrie; Giles Roditi; Anoop S V Shah; Adam D Timmis; Edwin J R van Beek; Michelle C Williams Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Majd Zreik; Nikolas Lessmann; Robbert W van Hamersvelt; Jelmer M Wolterink; Michiel Voskuil; Max A Viergever; Tim Leiner; Ivana Išgum Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2017-11-26 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Christian Tesche; Carlo N De Cecco; Stefan Baumann; Matthias Renker; Tindal W McLaurin; Taylor M Duguay; Richard R Bayer; Daniel H Steinberg; Katharine L Grant; Christian Canstein; Chris Schwemmer; Max Schoebinger; Lucian M Itu; Saikiran Rapaka; Puneet Sharma; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sara Gaur; Kristian Altern Øvrehus; Damini Dey; Jonathon Leipsic; Hans Erik Bøtker; Jesper Møller Jensen; Jagat Narula; Amir Ahmadi; Stephan Achenbach; Brian S Ko; Evald Høj Christiansen; Anne Kjer Kaltoft; Daniel S Berman; Hiram Bezerra; Jens Flensted Lassen; Bjarne Linde Nørgaard Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Andrew Lin; Márton Kolossváry; Manish Motwani; Ivana Išgum; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2021-03-22