Andrew D Choi1, Hugo Marques2, Vishak Kumar3, William F Griffin4, Habib Rahban5, Ronald P Karlsberg5, Robert K Zeman4, Richard J Katz3, James P Earls4. 1. Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: adchoi@mfa.gwu.edu. 2. Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central - Serviço de Radiologia do Hospital de Santa Marta, Lisboa, Portugal; Nova Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Lisboa, Portugal. 3. Division of Cardiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Cardiovascular Research Foundation of Southern California, Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Ali A Rostam-Alilou; Marziyeh Safari; Hamid R Jarrah; Ali Zolfagharian; Mahdi Bodaghi Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Rebecca Jonas; James Earls; Hugo Marques; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Jung Hyun Choi; Joon-Hyung Doh; Ae-Young Her; Bon Kwon Koo; Chang-Wook Nam; Hyung-Bok Park; Sanghoon Shin; Jason Cole; Alessia Gimelli; Muhammad Akram Khan; Bin Lu; Yang Gao; Faisal Nabi; Ryo Nakazato; U Joseph Schoepf; Roel S Driessen; Michiel J Bom; Randall C Thompson; James J Jang; Michael Ridner; Chris Rowan; Erick Avelar; Philippe Généreux; Paul Knaapen; Guus A de Waard; Gianluca Pontone; Daniele Andreini; Mouaz H Al-Mallah; Robert Jennings; Tami R Crabtree; Todd C Villines; James K Min; Andrew D Choi Journal: Open Heart Date: 2021-11
Authors: Simon Bernatz; Inga Weitkamp; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Vitali Koch; Leon D Grünewald; Christoph Mader; Jörg Ackermann; Moritz H Albrecht; Simon S Martin; Thomas J Vogl; Scherwin Mahmoudi Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2022-02-23
Authors: Pedro Covas; Eison De Guzman; Ian Barrows; Andrew J Bradley; Brian G Choi; Joseph M Krepp; Jannet F Lewis; Richard Katz; Cynthia M Tracy; Robert K Zeman; James P Earls; Andrew D Choi Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-03-21
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Suvasini Lakshmanan; Peter P Toth; Harvey S Hecht; Leslee J Shaw; David J Maron; Erin D Michos; Kim A Williams; Khurram Nasir; Andrew D Choi; Kavitha Chinnaiyan; James Min; Michael Blaha Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2022-01-20
Authors: Gudrun M Feuchtner; Fabian Plank; Christoph Beyer; Fabian Barbieri; Gerlig Widmann; Philipp Spitaler; Wolfgang Dichtl Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Mardhiyati Mohd Yunus; Ahmad Khairuddin Mohamed Yusof; Muhd Zaidi Ab Rahman; Xue Jing Koh; Akmal Sabarudin; Puteri N E Nohuddin; Kwan Hoong Ng; Mohd Mustafa Awang Kechik; Muhammad Khalis Abdul Karim Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-08
Authors: Andrew Lin; Nipun Manral; Priscilla McElhinney; Aditya Killekar; Hidenari Matsumoto; Jacek Kwiecinski; Konrad Pieszko; Aryabod Razipour; Kajetan Grodecki; Caroline Park; Yuka Otaki; Mhairi Doris; Alan C Kwan; Donghee Han; Keiichiro Kuronuma; Guadalupe Flores Tomasino; Evangelos Tzolos; Aakash Shanbhag; Markus Goeller; Mohamed Marwan; Heidi Gransar; Balaji K Tamarappoo; Sebastien Cadet; Stephan Achenbach; Stephen J Nicholls; Dennis T Wong; Daniel S Berman; Marc Dweck; David E Newby; Michelle C Williams; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2022-04