A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio as Predictors of the Placebo-Controlled Response to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: The Placebo-controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Relief of Stable Angina (ORBITA-2) provided evidence for the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for angina relief in stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are often used to guide PCI, however their ability to predict placebo-controlled angina improvement is unknown. METHODS: Participants with angina, ischemia, and stable CAD were enrolled and antianginal medications were stopped. Participants reported angina episodes daily for 2 weeks using the ORBITA-app. At the research angiogram, FFR and iFR were measured. After sedation and auditory isolation, participants were randomized to PCI or placebo, before entering a 12-week blinded follow-up phase with daily angina reporting. The ability of FFR and iFR, analyzed as continuous variables, to predict the placebo-controlled effect of PCI, was tested using Bayesian proportional odds modelling. RESULTS: Invasive physiology data were available in 279 patients (140 PCI and 139 placebo). The median (IQR) age was 65 years (59.0 to 70.5) and 223 (79.9%) were male. Median FFR was 0.60 (0.46 to 0.73) and median iFR was 0.76 (0.50 to 0.86). The lower the FFR or iFR, the greater the placebo-controlled improvement with PCI across all endpoints. There was strong evidence that a patient with an FFR at the lower quartile would have a greater placebo-controlled improvement in angina symptom score with PCI than a patient at the upper quartile (FFR 0.46 vs. 0.73: OR 2.01, 95% CrI 1.79 to 2.26, Pr(Interaction)>99.9%). Similarly, there was strong evidence that a patient with an iFR at the lower quartile would have a greater placebo controlled improvement in angina symptom score with PCI than a patient with an iFR at the upper quartile (iFR 0.50 vs. 0.86: OR 2.13, 95% CrI 1.87 to 2.45, Pr(Interaction) >99.9%). The relationship between benefit and physiology was seen in both Rose angina and Rose nonangina. CONCLUSIONS: Physiological stenosis severity, as measured by FFR and iFR, predicts placebo-controlled angina relief from PCI. Invasive coronary physiology can be used to target PCI to those patients who are most likely to experience benefit.

Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Automating quality control in cardiac magnetic resonance: Artificial intelligence for discriminative assessment of planning and motion artifacts and real-time reacquisition guidance.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurements from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images require precise positioning of scan planes and elimination of motion artifacts from arrhythmia or breathing. Unidentified or incorrectly managed artifacts degrade image quality, invalidate clinical measurements, and decrease diagnostic confidence. Currently, radiographers must manually inspect each acquired image to confirm diagnostic quality and decide whether reacquisition or a change in sequences is warranted. We aimed to develop artificial intelligence (AI) to provide continuous quality scores across different quality domains, and from these, determine whether cines are clinically adequate, require replanning, or warrant a change in protocol. METHODS: A three-dimensional convolutional neural network was trained to predict cine quality graded on a continuous scale by a level 3 CMR expert, focusing separately on planning and motion artifacts. It incorporated four distinct output heads for the assessment of image quality in terms of (a, b, c) 2-, 3- and 4-chamber misplanning, and (d) long- and short-axis arrhythmia/breathing artifact. Backpropagation was selectively performed across these heads based on the labels present for each cine. Each image in the testing set was reported by four level 3 CMR experts, providing a consensus on clinical adequacy. The AI's assessment of image quality and ability to identify images requiring replanning or sequence changes were evaluated with Spearman's rho and the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1940 cines across 1387 studies were included. On the test set of 383 cines, AI-judged image quality correlated strongly with expert judgment, with Spearman's rho of 0.84, 0.84, 0.81, and 0.81 for 2-, 3- and 4-chamber planning quality and the extent of arrhythmia or breathing artifacts, respectively. The AI also showed high efficacy in flagging clinically inadequate cines (AUROC 0.88, 0.93, and 0.93 for identifying misplanning of 2-, 3- and 4-chamber cines, and 0.90 for identifying movement artifacts). CONCLUSION: AI can assess distinct domains of CMR cine quality and provide continuous quality scores that correlate closely with a consensus of experts. These ratings could be used to identify cases where reacquisition is warranted and guide corrective actions to optimize image quality, including replanning, prospective gating, or real-time imaging.

Aortic stenosis assessment from the 3-chamber cine: Ratio of balanced steady-state-free-precession (bSSFP) blood signal between the aorta and left ventricle predicts severity.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is an important tool for evaluating the severity of aortic stenosis (AS), co-existing aortic disease, and concurrent myocardial abnormalities. Acquiring this additional information requires protocol adaptations and additional scanner time, but is not necessary for the majority of patients who do not have AS. We observed that the relative signal intensity of blood in the ascending aorta on a balanced steady state free precession (bSSFP) 3-chamber cine was often reduced in those with significant aortic stenosis. We investigated whether this effect could be quantified and used to predict AS severity in comparison to existing gold-standard measurements. METHODS: Multi-centre, multi-vendor retrospective analysis of patients with AS undergoing CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Blood signal intensity was measured in a ∼1 cm2 region of interest (ROI) in the aorta and left ventricle (LV) in the 3-chamber bSSFP cine. Because signal intensity varied across patients and scanner vendors, a ratio of the mean signal intensity in the aorta ROI to the LV ROI (Ao:LV) was used. This ratio was compared using Pearson correlations against TTE parameters of AS severity: aortic valve peak velocity, mean pressure gradient and the dimensionless index. The study also assessed whether field strength (1.5 T vs. 3 T) and patient characteristics (presence of bicuspid aortic valves (BAV), dilated aortic root and low flow states) altered this signal relationship. RESULTS: 314 patients (median age 69 [IQR 57-77], 64% male) who had undergone both CMR and TTE were studied; 84 had severe AS, 78 had moderate AS, 66 had mild AS and 86 without AS were studied as a comparator group. The median time between CMR and TTE was 12 weeks (IQR 4-26). The Ao:LV ratio at 1.5 T strongly correlated with peak velocity (r = -0.796, p = 0.001), peak gradient (r = -0.772, p = 0.001) and dimensionless index (r = 0.743, p = 0.001). An Ao:LV ratio of < 0.86 was 84% sensitive and 82% specific for detecting AS of any severity and a ratio of 0.58 was 83% sensitive and 92% specific for severe AS. The ability of Ao:LV ratio to predict AS severity remained for patients with bicuspid aortic valves, dilated aortic root or low indexed stroke volume. The relationship between Ao:LV ratio and AS severity was weaker at 3 T. CONCLUSIONS: The Ao:LV ratio, derived from bSSFP 3-chamber cine images, shows a good correlation with existing measures of AS severity. It demonstrates utility at 1.5 T and offers an easily calculable metric that can be used at the time of scanning or automated to identify on an adaptive basis which patients benefit from dedicated imaging to assess which patients should have additional sequences to assess AS.

Quality assurance of late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance images: a deep learning classifier for confidence in the presence or absence of abnormality with potential to prompt real-time image optimization.

BACKGROUND: Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) of the myocardium has significant diagnostic and prognostic implications, with even small areas of enhancement being important. Distinguishing between definitely normal and definitely abnormal LGE images is usually straightforward, but diagnostic uncertainty arises when reporters are not sure whether the observed LGE is genuine or not. This uncertainty might be resolved by repetition (to remove artifact) or further acquisition of intersecting images, but this must take place before the scan finishes. Real-time quality assurance by humans is a complex task requiring training and experience, so being able to identify which images have an intermediate likelihood of LGE while the scan is ongoing, without the presence of an expert is of high value. This decision-support could prompt immediate image optimization or acquisition of supplementary images to confirm or refute the presence of genuine LGE. This could reduce ambiguity in reports. METHODS: Short-axis, phase-sensitive inversion recovery late gadolinium images were extracted from our clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) database and shuffled. Two, independent, blinded experts scored each individual slice for "LGE likelihood" on a visual analog scale, from 0 (absolute certainty of no LGE) to 100 (absolute certainty of LGE), with 50 representing clinical equipoise. The scored images were split into two classes-either "high certainty" of whether LGE was present or not, or "low certainty." The dataset was split into training, validation, and test sets (70:15:15). A deep learning binary classifier based on the EfficientNetV2 convolutional neural network architecture was trained to distinguish between these categories. Classifier performance on the test set was evaluated by calculating the accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC AUC). Performance was also evaluated on an external test set of images from a different center. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred and forty-five images (from 272 patients) were labeled and split at the patient level into training (1151 images), validation (247 images), and test (247 images) sets for the deep learning binary classifier. Of these, 1208 images were "high certainty" (255 for LGE, 953 for no LGE), and 437 were "low certainty". An external test comprising 247 images from 41 patients from another center was also employed. After 100 epochs, the performance on the internal test set was accuracy = 0.94, recall = 0.80, precision = 0.97, F1-score = 0.87, and ROC AUC = 0.94. The classifier also performed robustly on the external test set (accuracy = 0.91, recall = 0.73, precision = 0.93, F1-score = 0.82, and ROC AUC = 0.91). These results were benchmarked against a reference inter-expert accuracy of 0.86. CONCLUSION: Deep learning shows potential to automate quality control of late gadolinium imaging in CMR. The ability to identify short-axis images with intermediate LGE likelihood in real-time may serve as a useful decision-support tool. This approach has the potential to guide immediate further imaging while the patient is still in the scanner, thereby reducing the frequency of recalls and inconclusive reports due to diagnostic indecision.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Left bundle branch pacing with and without anodal capture: impact on ventricular activation pattern and acute haemodynamics.

AIMS: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can deliver physiological left ventricular activation, but typically at the cost of delayed right ventricular (RV) activation. Right ventricular activation can be advanced through anodal capture, but there is uncertainty regarding the mechanism by which this is achieved, and it is not known whether this produces haemodynamic benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients with LBBP leads in whom anodal capture eliminated the terminal R-wave in lead V1. Ventricular activation pattern, timing, and high-precision acute haemodynamic response were studied during LBBP with and without anodal capture. We recruited 21 patients with a mean age of 67 years, of whom 14 were males. We measured electrocardiogram timings and haemodynamics in all patients, and in 16, we also performed non-invasive mapping. Ventricular epicardial propagation maps demonstrated that RV septal myocardial capture, rather than right bundle capture, was the mechanism for earlier RV activation. With anodal capture, QRS duration and total ventricular activation times were shorter (116 ± 12 vs. 129 ± 14 ms, P < 0.01 and 83 ± 18 vs. 90 ± 15 ms, P = 0.01). This required higher outputs (3.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V, P < 0.01) but without additional haemodynamic benefit (mean difference -0.2 ± 3.8 mmHg compared with pacing without anodal capture, P = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Left bundle branch pacing with anodal capture advances RV activation by stimulating the RV septal myocardium. However, this requires higher outputs and does not improve acute haemodynamics. Aiming for anodal capture may therefore not be necessary.

Septal scar as a barrier to left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization is increasing, but implants are not always successful. We prospectively studied consecutive patients to determine whether septal scar contributes to implant failure. METHODS: Patients scheduled for bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy were prospectively enrolled. Recruited patients underwent preprocedural scar assessment by cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement imaging. LBBAP was attempted using a lumenless lead (Medtronic 3830) via a transeptal approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were recruited: 29 male, mean age 68 years, 10 ischemic, and 16 non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Pacing indication was bradycardia in 26% and cardiac resynchronization in 74%. The lead was successfully deployed to the left ventricular septum in 30/35 (86%) and unsuccessful in the remaining 5/35 (14%). Septal late gadolinium enhancement was significantly less extensive in patients where left septal lead deployment was successful, compared those where it was unsuccessful (median 8%, IQR 2%-18% vs. median 54%, IQR 53%-57%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of septal scar appears to make it more challenging to deploy a lead to the left ventricular septum via the transeptal route. Additional implant tools or alternative approaches may be required in patients with extensive septal scar.

Patterns of myocardial injury in recovered troponin-positive COVID-19 patients assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

BACKGROUND: Troponin elevation is common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but underlying aetiologies are ill-defined. We used multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess myocardial injury in recovered COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight patients (64 ± 12 years, 70% male) with severe COVID-19 infection [all requiring hospital admission, 48 (32%) requiring ventilatory support] and troponin elevation discharged from six hospitals underwent convalescent CMR (including adenosine stress perfusion if indicated) at median 68 days. Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% (ejection fraction 67% ± 11%). Late gadolinium enhancement and/or ischaemia was found in 54% (80/148). This comprised myocarditis-like scar in 26% (39/148), infarction and/or ischaemia in 22% (32/148) and dual pathology in 6% (9/148). Myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or less myocardial segments in 88% (35/40) of cases with no associated LV dysfunction; of these, 30% had active myocarditis. Myocardial infarction was found in 19% (28/148) and inducible ischaemia in 26% (20/76) of those undergoing stress perfusion (including 7 with both infarction and ischaemia). Of patients with ischaemic injury pattern, 66% (27/41) had no past history of coronary disease. There was no evidence of diffuse fibrosis or oedema in the remote myocardium (T1: COVID-19 patients 1033 ± 41 ms vs. matched controls 1028 ± 35 ms; T2: COVID-19 46 ± 3 ms vs. matched controls 47 ± 3 ms). CONCLUSIONS: During convalescence after severe COVID-19 infection with troponin elevation, myocarditis-like injury can be encountered, with limited extent and minimal functional consequence. In a proportion of patients, there is evidence of possible ongoing localized inflammation. A quarter of patients had ischaemic heart disease, of which two-thirds had no previous history. Whether these observed findings represent pre-existing clinically silent disease or de novo COVID-19-related changes remain undetermined. Diffuse oedema or fibrosis was not detected.

The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in clinical practice. Although there is robust evidence that AI innovations can improve patient care, reduce clinicians' workload and increase efficiency, their impact on medical training and education remains unclear. METHODS: A survey of trainee doctors' perceived impact of AI technologies on clinical training and education was conducted at UK NHS postgraduate centers in London between October and December 2020. Impact assessment mirrored domains in training curricula such as 'clinical judgement', 'practical skills' and 'research and quality improvement skills'. Significance between Likert-type data was analysed using Fisher's exact test. Response variations between clinical specialities were analysed using k-modes clustering. Free-text responses were analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred ten doctors responded to the survey (response rate 72%). The majority (58%) perceived an overall positive impact of AI technologies on their training and education. Respondents agreed that AI would reduce clinical workload (62%) and improve research and audit training (68%). Trainees were skeptical that it would improve clinical judgement (46% agree, p = 0.12) and practical skills training (32% agree, p < 0.01). The majority reported insufficient AI training in their current curricula (92%), and supported having more formal AI training (81%). CONCLUSIONS: Trainee doctors have an overall positive perception of AI technologies' impact on clinical training. There is optimism that it will improve 'research and quality improvement' skills and facilitate 'curriculum mapping'. There is skepticism that it may reduce educational opportunities to develop 'clinical judgement' and 'practical skills'. Medical educators should be mindful that these domains are protected as AI develops. We recommend that 'Applied AI' topics are formalized in curricula and digital technologies leveraged to deliver clinical education.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention of death in left ventricular dysfunction with and without ischaemic heart disease: a meta-analysis of 8567 patients in the 11 trials.

AIMS: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are established therapy for reducing mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and ischaemic heart disease (IHD). However, their efficacy in patients without IHD has been controversial. We undertook a meta-analysis of the totality of the evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all RCTs comparing ICD vs. no ICD in primary prevention. Eligible RCTs were those that recruited patients with left ventricular dysfunction, reported all-cause mortality, and presented their results stratified by the presence of IHD (or recruited only those with or without). Our primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. We identified 11 studies enrolling 8567 participants with left ventricular dysfunction, including 3128 patients without IHD and 5439 patients with IHD. In patients without IHD, ICD therapy reduced mortality by 24% (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90, P = 0.001). In patients with IHD, ICD implantation (at a dedicated procedure), also reduced mortality by 24% (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Until now, it has never been explicitly stated that the patients without IHD in COMPANION showed significant survival benefit from adding ICD therapy (to a background of CRT). Even before DANISH, meta-analysis of patients without ischaemic heart disease already showed reduced mortality. DANISH is consistent with these data. With a significant 24% mortality reduction in both aetiologies, it may no longer be necessary to distinguish between them when deciding on primary prevention ICD implantation.

Automatic detection of end-diastolic and end-systolic frames in 2D echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Correctly selecting the end-diastolic and end-systolic frames on a 2D echocardiogram is important and challenging, for both human experts and automated algorithms. Manual selection is time-consuming and subject to uncertainty, and may affect the results obtained, especially for advanced measurements such as myocardial strain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed and evaluated algorithms which can automatically extract global and regional cardiac velocity, and identify end-diastolic and end-systolic frames. We acquired apical four-chamber 2D echocardiographic video recordings, each at least 10 heartbeats long, acquired twice at frame rates of 52 and 79 frames/s from 19 patients, yielding 38 recordings. Five experienced echocardiographers independently marked end-systolic and end-diastolic frames for the first 10 heartbeats of each recording. The automated algorithm also did this. Using the average of time points identified by five human operators as the reference gold standard, the individual operators had a root mean square difference from that gold standard of 46.5 ms. The algorithm had a root mean square difference from the human gold standard of 40.5 ms (P<.0001). Put another way, the algorithm-identified time point was an outlier in 122/564 heartbeats (21.6%), whereas the average human operator was an outlier in 254/564 heartbeats (45%). CONCLUSION: An automated algorithm can identify the end-systolic and end-diastolic frames with performance indistinguishable from that of human experts. This saves staff time, which could therefore be invested in assessing more beats, and reduces uncertainty about the reliability of the choice of frame.

The challenge of delivering reliable science and guidelines: opportunities for all to participate.

Erroneous research results have potential for harm far beyond the patients recruited into the study, because the leverage of leadership permits them to alter behaviour of thousands of clinicians for many years. Medical research does not yet have as well-developed and rapid-responding safety systems as other spheres where lives are at stake. As doctors we would all leap to assist in a medical emergency for a patient not formally under our care. Yet, when problems occur in clinical research, we do not yet have good mechanisms to all work together quickly and decisively to improve patient safety. In this article we describe how each of us, regardless of our role, can (and perhaps should) take active steps to support delivery of reliable science for patient care.

Applicability of the iterative technique for cardiac resynchronization therapy optimization: full-disclosure, 50-sequential-patient dataset of transmitral Doppler traces, with implications for future research design and guidelines.

AIMS: Full-disclosure study describing Doppler patterns during iterative atrioventricular delay (AVD) optimization of biventricular pacemakers (cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT). METHOD AND RESULTS: Doppler traces of the first 50 eligible patients undergoing iterative Doppler AVD optimization in the BRAVO trial were examined. Three experienced observers classified conformity to guideline-described patterns. Each observer then selected the optimum AVD on two separate occasions: blinded and unblinded to AVD. Four Doppler E-A patterns occurred: A (always merged, 18% of patients), B (incrementally less fusion at short AVDs, 12%), C (full separation at short AVDs, as described by the guidelines, 28%), and D (always separated, 42%). In Groups A and D (60%), the iterative guidelines therefore cannot specify one single AVD. On the kappa scale (0 = chance alone; 1 = perfect agreement), observer agreement for the ideal AVD in Classes B and C was poor (0.32) and appeared worse in Groups A and D (0.22). Blinding caused the scattering of the AVD selected as optimal to widen (standard deviation rising from 37 to 49 ms, P < 0.001). By blinding 28% of the selected optimum AVDs were ≤60 or ≥200 ms. All 50 Doppler datasets are presented, to support future methodological testing. CONCLUSION: In most patients, the iterative method does not clearly specify one AVD. In all the patients, agreement on the ideal AVD between skilled observers viewing identical images is poor. The iterative protocol may successfully exclude some extremely unsuitable AVDs, but so might simply accepting factory default. Irreproducibility of the gold standard also prevents alternative physiological optimization methods from being validated honestly.

2-Dimensional Echocardiographic Global Longitudinal Strain With Artificial Intelligence Using Open Data From a UK-Wide Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is reported to be more reproducible and prognostic than ejection fraction. Automated, transparent methods may increase trust and uptake. OBJECTIVES: The authors developed open machine-learning-based GLS methodology and validate it using multiexpert consensus from the Unity UK Echocardiography AI Collaborative. METHODS: We trained a multi-image neural network (Unity-GLS) to identify annulus, apex, and endocardial curve on 6,819 apical 4-, 2-, and 3-chamber images. The external validation dataset comprised those 3 views from 100 echocardiograms. End-systolic and -diastolic frames were each labelled by 11 experts to form consensus tracings and points. They also ordered the echocardiograms by visual grading of longitudinal function. One expert calculated global strain using 2 proprietary packages. RESULTS: The median GLS, averaged across the 11 individual experts, was -16.1 (IQR: -19.3 to -12.5). Using each case's expert consensus measurement as the reference standard, individual expert measurements had a median absolute error of 2.00 GLS units. In comparison, the errors of the machine methods were: Unity-GLS 1.3, proprietary A 2.5, proprietary B 2.2. The correlations with the expert consensus values were for individual experts 0.85, Unity-GLS 0.91, proprietary A 0.73, proprietary B 0.79. Using the multiexpert visual ranking as the reference, individual expert strain measurements found a median rank correlation of 0.72, Unity-GLS 0.77, proprietary A 0.70, and proprietary B 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: Our open-source approach to calculating GLS agrees with experts' consensus as strongly as the individual expert measurements and proprietary machine solutions. The training data, code, and trained networks are freely available online.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the coronary sinus Reducer in refractory angina: design and rationale of the ORBITA-COSMIC trial.

The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is an hourglass-shaped device which creates an artificial stenosis in the coronary sinus. Whilst placebo-controlled data show an improvement in angina, these results are unreplicated and are the subject of further confirmatory research. The mechanism of action of this unintuitive therapy is unknown. The Coronary Sinus Reducer Objective Impact on Symptoms, MRI Ischaemia, and Microvascular Resistance (ORBITA-COSMIC) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of the CSR. Patients with (i) established epicardial coronary artery disease, (ii) angina on maximally tolerated antianginal medication, (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia and (iv) no further options for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will be enrolled. Upon enrolment, angina and quality-of-life questionnaires, treadmill exercise testing and quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging will be performed. Participants will record their symptoms daily on a smartphone application throughout the trial. After a 2-week symptom assessment phase, participants will be randomised in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to CSR or a placebo procedure. After 6 months of blinded follow-up, all prerandomisation tests will be repeated. A prespecified subgroup will undergo invasive coronary physiology assessment at prerandomisation and follow-up. The primary outcome is stress myocardial blood flow on CMR. Secondary outcomes include angina frequency, quality of life and treadmill exercise time. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04892537).

N-of-1 Trial of Angina Verification Before Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: In stable coronary artery disease, 30% to 60% of patients remain symptomatic despite successful revascularization. Perhaps not all symptoms reported by a patient with myocardial ischemia are, in fact, angina. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether independent symptom verification using a placebo-controlled ischemic stimulus could distinguish which patients achieve greatest symptom relief from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: ORBITA-STAR was a multicenter, n-of-1, placebo-controlled study in patients undergoing single-vessel PCI for stable symptoms. Participants underwent 4 episodes (60 seconds each) of low-pressure balloon occlusion across their coronary stenosis, randomly paired with 4 episodes of placebo inflation. Following each episode, patients reported the similarity of the induced symptom in comparison with their usual symptom. The similarity score ranged from -10 (placebo replicated the symptom more than balloon occlusion) to +10 (balloon occlusion exactly replicated the symptom). The primary endpoint was the ability of the similarity score to predict symptom relief with PCI. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were recruited, aged 62.9 ± 8.6 years. The median fractional flow reserve was 0.68 (Q1-Q3: 0.57-0.79), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.80 (Q1-Q3: 0.48-0.89). The median similarity score was 3 (Q1-Q3: 0.875-5.25). The similarity score was a strong predictor of symptom improvement following PCI: a patient with an upper quartile similarity score of 5.25 was significantly more likely to have lower angina frequency at follow-up (OR: 8.01; 95% credible interval: 2.39-15.86) than a patient with a lower quartile similarity score of 0.875 (OR: 1.31; 95% credible interval: 0.71-1.99), Pr(difference) >99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Similarity score powerfully predicted symptom improvement from PCI. These data lay the foundation for independent symptom mapping to target PCI to those patients most likely to benefit. (Systematic Trial of Angina Assessment Before Revascularization [ORBITA-STAR]; NCT04280575).

Automated Inline Myocardial Segmentation of Joint T1 and T2 Mapping Using Deep Learning.

Purpose: To develop an artificial intelligence (AI) solution for automated segmentation and analysis of joint cardiac MRI short-axis T1 and T2 mapping. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, a joint T1 and T2 mapping sequence was used to acquire 4240 maps from 807 patients across two hospitals between March and November 2020. Five hundred nine maps from 94 consecutive patients were assigned to a holdout testing set. A convolutional neural network was trained to segment the endocardial and epicardial contours with use of an edge probability estimation approach. Training labels were segmented by an expert cardiologist. Predicted contours were processed to yield mapping values for each of the 16 American Heart Association segments. Network segmentation performance and segment-wise measurements on the testing set were compared with those of two experts on the holdout testing set. The AI model was fully integrated using open-source software to run on MRI scanners. Results: A total of 3899 maps (92%) were deemed artifact-free and suitable for human segmentation. AI segmentation closely matched that of each expert (mean Dice coefficient, 0.82 ± 0.07 [SD] vs expert 1 and 0.86 ± 0.06 vs expert 2) and compared favorably with interexpert agreement (Dice coefficient, 0.84 ± 0.06 for expert 1 vs expert 2). AI-derived segment-wise values for native T1, postcontrast T1, and T2 mapping correlated with expert-derived values (R 2 = 0.96, 0.98, and 0.87, respectively, vs expert 1, and 0.97, 0.99, and 0.92 vs expert 2) and fell within the range of interexpert reproducibility (R 2 = 0.97, 0.99, and 0.90, respectively). The AI model has since been deployed at two hospitals, enabling automated inline analysis. Conclusion: Automated inline analysis of joint T1 and T2 mapping allows accurate segment-wise tissue characterization, with performance equivalent to that of human experts.Keywords: MRI, Neural Networks, Cardiac, Heart Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2022.