Automated vessel-specific coronary artery calcification quantification with deep learning in a large multi-centre registry.

AIMS: Vessel-specific coronary artery calcification (CAC) is additive to global CAC for prognostic assessment. We assessed accuracy and prognostic implications of vessel-specific automated deep learning (DL) CAC analysis on electrocardiogram (ECG) gated and attenuation correction (AC) computed tomography (CT) in a large multi-centre registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vessel-specific CAC was assessed in the left main/left anterior descending (LM/LAD), left circumflex (LCX), and right coronary artery (RCA) using a DL model trained on 3000 gated CT and tested on 2094 gated CT and 5969 non-gated AC CT. Vessel-specific agreement was assessed with linear weighted Cohen's Kappa for CAC zero, 1-100, 101-400, and >400 Agatston units (AU). Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was assessed during 2.4 ± 1.4 years follow-up, with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). There was strong to excellent agreement between DL and expert ground truth for CAC in LM/LAD, LCX and RCA on gated CT [0.90 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92); 0.70 (0.68 to 0.73); 0.79 (0.77 to 0.81)] and AC CT [0.78 (0.77 to 0.80); 0.60 (0.58 to 0.62); 0.70 (0.68 to 0.71)]. MACE occurred in 242 (12%) undergoing gated CT and 841(14%) of undergoing AC CT. LM/LAD CAC >400 AU was associated with the highest risk of MACE on gated (HR 12.0, 95% CI 7.96, 18.0, P < 0.001) and AC CT (HR 4.21, 95% CI 3.48, 5.08, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Vessel-specific CAC assessment with DL can be performed accurately and rapidly on gated CT and AC CT and provides important prognostic information.

Artificial intelligence-based automated left ventricular mass quantification from non-contrast cardiac CT scans: correlation with contrast CT and cardiac MRI.

Background: Non-contrast CT scans are not used for evaluating left ventricle myocardial mass (LV mass), which is typically evaluated with contrast CT or cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We assessed the feasibility of LV mass estimation from standard, ECG-gated, non-contrast CT using an artificial intelligence (AI) approach and compare it with coronary CT angiography (CTA) and cardiac MRI. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients who underwent coronary CTA, which included non-contrast CT calcium scanning and contrast CTA, and cardiac MRI. The median interval between coronary CTA and MRI was 22 days (IQR: 3-76). We utilized an nn-Unet AI model that automatically segmented non-contrast CT structures. AI measurement of LV mass was compared to contrast CTA and MRI. Results: A total of 316 patients (Age: 57.1±16.7, 56% male) were included. The AI segmentation took on average 22 seconds per case. An excellent correlation was observed between AI and contrast CTA LV mass measures (r=0.84, p<0.001), with no significant differences (136.5±55.3 vs. 139.6±56.9 g, p=0.133). Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal bias of 2.9. When compared to MRI, measured LV mass was higher with AI (136.5±55.3 vs. 127.1±53.1 g, p<0.001). There was an excellent correlation between AI and MRI (r=0.85, p<0.001), with a small bias (-9.4). There were no statistical differences between the correlations of LV mass between contrast CTA and MRI, or AI and MRI. Conclusions: The AI-based automated estimation of LV mass from non-contrast CT demonstrated excellent correlations and minimal biases when compared to contrast CTA and MRI.

Prognostic validation of a 17-segment score derived from a 20-segment score for myocardial perfusion SPECT interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a 17-segment model of the left ventricle has been recommended as an optimally weighted approach for interpreting myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods to convert databases from previous 20- to new 17-segment data and criteria for abnormality for the 17-segment scores are needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Initially, for derivation of the conversion algorithm, 65 patients were studied (algorithm population) (pilot group, n = 28; validation group, n = 37). Three conversion algorithms were derived: algorithm 1, which used mid, distal, and apical scores; algorithm 2, which used distal and apical scores alone; and algorithm 3, which used maximal scores of the distal septal, lateral, and apical segments in the 20-segment model for 3 corresponding segments of the 17-segment model. The prognosis population comprised 16,020 consecutive patients (mean age, 65 +/- 12 years; 41% women) who had exercise or vasodilator stress technetium 99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT and were followed up for 2.1 +/- 0.8 years. In this population, 17-segment scores were derived from 20-segment scores by use of algorithm 2, which demonstrated the best agreement with expert 17-segment reading in the algorithm population. The prognostic value of the 20- and 17-segment scores was compared by converting the respective summed scores into percent myocardium abnormal. Conversion algorithm 2 was found to be highly concordant with expert visual analysis by the 17-segment model (r = 0.982; kappa = 0.866) in the algorithm population. In the prognosis population, 456 cardiac deaths occurred during follow-up. When the conversion algorithm was applied, extent and severity of perfusion defects were nearly identical by 20- and derived 17-segment scores. The receiver operating characteristic curve areas by 20- and 17-segment perfusion scores were identical for predicting cardiac death (both 0.77 +/- 0.02, P = not significant). The optimal prognostic cutoff value for either 20- or derived 17-segment models was confirmed to be 5% myocardium abnormal, corresponding to a summed stress score greater than 3. Of note, the 17-segment model demonstrated a trend toward fewer mildly abnormal scans and more normal and severely abnormal scans. CONCLUSION: An algorithm for conversion of 20-segment perfusion scores to 17-segment scores has been developed that is highly concordant with expert visual analysis by the 17-segment model and provides nearly identical prognostic information. This conversion model may provide a mechanism for comparison of studies analyzed by the 17-segment system with previous studies analyzed by the 20-segment approach.