Diabetes, Atherosclerosis, and Stenosis by AI.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the relationship between atherosclerotic plaque characteristics (APCs) and angiographic stenosis severity in patients with and without diabetes. Whether APCs differ based on lesion severity and diabetes status is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 303 subjects from the Computed TomogRaphic Evaluation of Atherosclerotic Determinants of Myocardial IsChEmia (CREDENCE) trial referred for invasive coronary angiography with coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) and classified lesions as obstructive (≥50% stenosed) or nonobstructive using blinded core laboratory analysis of quantitative coronary angiography. CCTA quantified APCs, including plaque volume (PV), calcified plaque (CP), noncalcified plaque (NCP), low-density NCP (LD-NCP), lesion length, positive remodeling (PR), high-risk plaque (HRP), and percentage of atheroma volume (PAV; PV normalized for vessel volume). The relationship between APCs, stenosis severity, and diabetes status was assessed. RESULTS: Among the 303 patients, 95 (31.4%) had diabetes. There were 117 lesions in the cohort with diabetes, 58.1% of which were obstructive. Patients with diabetes had greater plaque burden (P = 0.004). Patients with diabetes and nonobstructive disease had greater PV (P = 0.02), PAV (P = 0.02), NCP (P = 0.03), PAV NCP (P = 0.02), diseased vessels (P = 0.03), and maximum stenosis (P = 0.02) than patients without diabetes with nonobstructive disease. APCs were similar between patients with diabetes with nonobstructive disease and patients without diabetes with obstructive disease. Diabetes status did not affect HRP or PR. Patients with diabetes had similar APCs in obstructive and nonobstructive lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes and nonobstructive stenosis had an association to similar APCs as patients without diabetes who had obstructive stenosis. Among patients with nonobstructive disease, patients with diabetes had more total PV and NCP.

Interobserver variability among expert readers quantifying plaque volume and plaque characteristics on coronary CT angiography: a CLARIFY trial sub-study.

BACKGROUND: The difference between expert level (L3) reader and artificial intelligence (AI) performance for quantifying coronary plaque and plaque components is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the interobserver variability among expert readers for quantifying the volume of coronary plaque and plaque components on coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) using an artificial intelligence enabled quantitative CCTA analysis software as a reference (AI-QCT). METHODS: This study uses CCTA imaging obtained from 232 patients enrolled in the CLARIFY (CT EvaLuation by ARtificial Intelligence For Atherosclerosis, Stenosis and Vascular MorphologY) study. Readers quantified overall plaque volume and the % breakdown of noncalcified plaque (NCP) and calcified plaque (CP) on a per vessel basis. Readers categorized high risk plaque (HRP) based on the presence of low-attenuation-noncalcified plaque (LA-NCP) and positive remodeling (PR; ≥1.10). All CCTAs were analyzed by an FDA-cleared software service that performs AI-driven plaque characterization and quantification (AI-QCT) for comparison to L3 readers. Reader generated analyses were compared among readers and to AI-QCT generated analyses. RESULTS: When evaluating plaque volume on a per vessel basis, expert readers achieved moderate to high interobserver consistency with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.78 for a single reader score and 0.91 for mean scores. There was a moderate trend between readers 1, 2, and 3 and AI with spearman coefficients of 0.70, 0.68 and 0.74, respectively. There was high discordance between readers and AI plaque component analyses. When quantifying %NCP v. %CP, readers 1, 2, and 3 achieved a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.23, 0.34 and 0.24, respectively, compared to AI with a spearman coefficient of 0.38, 0.51, and 0.60, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient among readers for plaque composition assessment was 0.68. With respect to HRP, readers 1, 2, and 3 achieved a weighted kappa coefficient of 0.22, 0.26, and 0.17, respectively, and a spearman coefficient of 0.36, 0.35, and 0.44, respectively. CONCLUSION: Expert readers performed moderately well quantifying total plaque volumes with high consistency. However, there was both significant interobserver variability and high discordance with AI-QCT when quantifying plaque composition.

The effect of scan and patient parameters on the diagnostic performance of AI for detecting coronary stenosis on coronary CT angiography.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scanning, scan preparation, contrast, and patient based parameters influence the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) based analysis software for identifying coronary lesions with ≥50% stenosis. BACKGROUND: CCTA is a noninvasive imaging modality that provides diagnostic and prognostic benefit to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of AI enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software enhances our diagnostic and prognostic ability, however, it is currently unclear whether software performance is influenced by CCTA scanning parameters. METHODS: CCTA and quantitative coronary CT (QCT) data from 303 stable patients (64 ± 10 years, 71% male) from the derivation arm of the CREDENCE Trial were retrospectively analyzed using an FDA-cleared cloud-based software that performs AI-enabled coronary segmentation, lumen and vessel wall determination, plaque quantification and characterization, and stenosis determination. The algorithm's diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for detecting coronary lesions of ≥50% stenosis were determined based on concordance with QCA measurements and subsequently compared across scanning parameters (including scanner vendor, model, single vs dual source, tube voltage, dose length product, gating technique, timing method), scan preparation technique (use of beta blocker, use and dose of nitroglycerin), contrast administration parameters (contrast type, infusion rate, iodine concentration, contrast volume) and patient parameters (heart rate and BMI). RESULTS: Within the patient cohort, 13% demonstrated ≥50% stenosis in 3 vessel territories, 21% in 2 vessel territories, 35% in 1 vessel territory while 32% had <50% stenosis in all vessel territories evaluated by QCA. Average AI analysis time was 10.3 ± 2.7 min. On a per vessel basis, there were significant differences only in sensitivity for ≥50% stenosis based on contrast type (iso-osmolar 70.0% vs non isoosmolar 92.1% p = 0.0345) and iodine concentration (<350 mg/ml 70.0%, 350-369 mg/ml 90.0%, 370-400 mg/ml 90.0%, >400 mg/ml 95.2%; p = 0.0287) in the context of low injection flow rates. On a per patient basis there were no significant differences in AI diagnostic performance measures across all measured scanner, scan technique, patient preparation, contrast, and individual patient parameters. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of AI-QCT analysis software for detecting moderate to high grade stenosis are unaffected by commonly used CCTA scanning parameters and across a range of common scanning, scanner, contrast and patient variables. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: An AI-enabled quantitative CCTA (AI-QCT) analysis software has been validated as an effective tool for the identification, quantification and characterization of coronary plaque and stenosis through comparison to blinded expert readers and quantitative coronary angiography. However, it is unclear whether CCTA screening parameters related to scanner parameters, scan technique, contrast volume and rate, radiation dose, or a patient's BMI or heart rate at time of scan affect the software's diagnostic measures for detection of moderate to high grade stenosis. AI performance measures were unaffected across a broad range of commonly encountered scanner, patient preparation, scan technique, intravenous contrast and patient parameters.

Targets and delivery methods for therapeutic angiogenesis in peripheral artery disease.

Therapeutic angiogenesis utilizing genetic and cellular modalities in the treatment of arterial obstructive diseases continues to evolve. This is, in part, because the mechanism of vasculogenesis, angiogenesis, and arteriogenesis (the three processes by which the body responds to obstruction of large conduit arteries) is a complex process that is still under investigation. To date, the majority of human trials utilizing molecular, genetic, and cellular modalities for therapeutic angiogenesis in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) have not shown efficacy. Consequently, the current available knowledge is yet to be translated into novel therapeutic approaches for the treatment of PAD. The aim of this review is to discuss relevant scientific and clinical advances in therapeutic angiogenesis and their potential application in the treatment of ischemic diseases of the peripheral arteries. Additionally, this review article discusses past and recent developments, such as some unconventional approaches that have the potential to be applied as therapeutic targets. The article also includes advances in the delivery of genetic, cellular, and bioactive endothelial growth factors.