Development of artificial intelligence tools for invasive Doppler-based coronary microvascular assessment.

Aims: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment has proven clinical utility, but Doppler-based methods are sensitive to noise and operator bias, limiting their clinical applicability. The objective of the study is to expand the adoption of invasive Doppler CFR, through the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to automatically quantify coronary Doppler quality and track flow velocity. Methods and results: A neural network was trained on images extracted from coronary Doppler flow recordings to score signal quality and derive values for coronary flow velocity and CFR. The outputs were independently validated against expert consensus. Artificial intelligence successfully quantified Doppler signal quality, with high agreement with expert consensus (Spearman's rho: 0.94), and within individual experts. Artificial intelligence automatically tracked flow velocity with superior numerical agreement against experts, when compared with the current console algorithm [AI flow vs. expert flow bias -1.68 cm/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.13 to -1.23 cm/s, P < 0.001 with limits of agreement (LOA) -4.03 to 0.68 cm/s; console flow vs. expert flow bias -2.63 cm/s, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.52, P < 0.001, 95% LOA -8.45 to -3.19 cm/s]. Artificial intelligence yielded more precise CFR values [median absolute difference (MAD) against expert CFR: 4.0% for AI and 7.4% for console]. Artificial intelligence tracked lower-quality Doppler signals with lower variability (MAD against expert CFR 8.3% for AI and 16.7% for console). Conclusion: An AI-based system, trained by experts and independently validated, could assign a quality score to Doppler traces and derive coronary flow velocity and CFR. By making Doppler CFR more automated, precise, and operator-independent, AI could expand the clinical applicability of coronary microvascular assessment.

Quality of Life Assessment in Trials of Revascularization for Chronic Stable Angina: Insights from ORBITA and the Implications of Blinding.

The main aims of therapy in chronic stable angina are to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and death and improve symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Unblinded trials have shown that revascularization does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or death but does appear to improve symptoms. However, symptoms are susceptible to the placebo effect which can bias therapies to appear more effective than they are. To assess the true physical impact of a treatment on symptoms, placebo-controlled trials with patients and medical and research teams blinded to treatment allocation are necessary. Symptoms and QoL can be reported directly by the patient or indirectly by the physician. Patient-reported outcome measures in angina trials can include angina frequency, frequency of nitrate use, exercise capacity, and questionnaires such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the generic EuroQOL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) QoL questionnaire. Physician-assessed outcome measures include Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class. The Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial was the first blinded placebo-controlled study investigating the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. The trial showed a smaller than expected and not statistically significant effect of placebo-controlled PCI on the primary endpoint of change in exercise time at 6 weeks follow-up in single-vessel coronary artery disease. There was also no significant placebo-controlled treatment effect of PCI for the prespecified secondary endpoints of SAQ or EQ-5D-5L, although PCI did result in 20% more patients becoming free from angina than placebo in a non-prespecified secondary analysis. ORBITA has demonstrated the need for symptomatic and QoL effects of PCI to be studied using placebo control. Here, we describe ways of measuring QoL, the impact of the unblinded and blinded trials to date, what we have learned from ORBITA, and what is next for this common and complex condition.

Phasic flow patterns of right versus left coronary arteries in patients undergoing clinical physiological assessment.

BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow in humans is known to be predominantly diastolic. Small studies in animals and humans suggest that this is less pronounced or even reversed in the right coronary artery (RCA). AIMS: This study aimed to characterise the phasic patterns of coronary flow in the left versus right coronary arteries of patients undergoing invasive physiological assessment. METHODS: We analysed data from the Iberian-Dutch-English Collaborators (IDEAL) study. A total of 482 simultaneous pressure and flow measurements from 301 patients were included in our analysis. RESULTS: On average, coronary flow was higher in diastole both at rest and during hyperaemia in both the RCA and LCA (mean diastolic-to-systolic velocity ratio [DSVR] was, respectively, 1.85±0.70, 1.76±0.58, 1.53±0.34 and 1.58±0.43 for LCArest, LCAhyp, RCArest and RCAhyp, p<0.001 for between-vessel comparisons). Although the type of RCA dominance affected the DSVR magnitude (RCAdom=1.55±0.35, RCAco-dom=1.40±0.27, RCAnon-dom=1.35; standard deviation not reported as n=3), systolic flow was very rarely predominant (DSVR was greater than or equal to 1.00 in 472/482 cases [97.9%] overall), with equal prevalence in the LCA. Stenosis severity or microvascular dysfunction had a negligible impact on DSVR in both the RCA and LCA (DSVR x hyperaemic stenosis resistance R2 =0.018, p=0.03 and DSVR x coronary flow reserve R2 <0.001, p=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing physiological assessment, diastolic flow predominance is seen in both left and right coronary arteries. Clinical interpretation of coronary physiological data should therefore not differ between the left and the right coronary systems.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention for single-vessel coronary artery disease: an economic evaluation of the ORBITA trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with placebo in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease and angina despite anti-anginal therapy. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing PCI with placebo. A Markov model was used to measure incremental cost-effectiveness, in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, over 12 months. Health utility weights were estimated using responses to the EuroQol 5-level questionnaire, from the Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial and UK preference weights. Costs of procedures and follow-up consultations were derived from Healthcare Resource Group reference costs and drug costs from the National Health Service (NHS) drug tariff. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to test the robustness of results to parameter uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to test the effect on results of reduced pharmaceutical costs in patients undergoing PCI, and the effect of patients crossing over from placebo to PCI due to refractory angina within 12 months. SETTING: Five UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 200 adult patients with stable angina and angiographically severe single-vessel coronary artery disease on anti-anginal therapy. INTERVENTIONS: At recruitment, patients received 6 weeks of optimisation of medical therapy for angina after which they were randomised to PCI or a placebo procedure. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost (in £) per QALY gained for PCI compared with placebo. RESULTS: The estimated ICER is £90 218/QALY gained when using PCI compared with placebo in patients receiving medical treatment for angina due to single-vessel coronary artery disease. Results were robust under sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER for PCI compared with placebo, in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease and angina on anti-anginal medication, exceeds the threshold of £30 000 used by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence when undertaking health technology assessment for the NHS context.Trial registration: The ORBITA study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593.

Mortality From Ischemic Heart Disease.

Background Ischemic heart disease (IHD) has been considered the top cause of mortality globally. However, countries differ in their rates and there have been changes over time. Methods and Results We analyzed mortality data submitted to the World Health Organization from 2005 to 2015 by individual countries. We explored patterns in relationships with age, sex, and income and calculated age-standardized mortality rates for each country in addition to crude death rates. In 5 illustrative countries which provided detailed data, we analyzed trends of mortality from IHD and 3 noncommunicable diseases (lung cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory tract diseases) and examined the simultaneous trends in important cardiovascular risk factors. Russia, United States, and Ukraine had the largest absolute numbers of deaths among the countries that provided data. Among 5 illustrative countries (United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), IHD was the top cause of death, but mortality from IHD has progressively decreased from 2005 to 2015. Age-standardized IHD mortality rates per 100 000 people per year were much higher in Ukraine (324) and Kazakhstan (97) than in United States (60), Brazil (54), and the United Kingdom (46), with much less difference in other causes of death. All 5 countries showed a progressive decline in IHD mortality, with a decline in smoking and hypertension and in all cases a rise in obesity and type II diabetes mellitus. Conclusions IHD remains the single largest cause of death in countries of all income groups. Rates are different between countries and are falling in most countries, indicating great potential for further gains. On the horizon, future improvements may become curtailed by increasing hypertension in some developing countries and more importantly global growth in obesity.