We have located links that may give you full text access.
Coronary artery disease evaluation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement work-up using photon-counting CT and artificial intelligence.
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 2024 Februrary 17
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the capabilities of photon-counting (PC) CT combined with artificial intelligence-derived coronary computed tomography angiography (PC-CCTA) stenosis quantification and fractional flow reserve prediction (FFRai) for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) work-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis referred for pre-TAVR work-up between October 2021 and June 2023 were included in this retrospective tertiary single-center study. All patients underwent both PC-CCTA and ICA within three months for reference standard diagnosis. PC-CCTA stenosis quantification (at 50% level) and FFRai (at 0.8 level) were predicted using two deep learning models (CorEx, Spimed-AI). Diagnostic performance for global CAD evaluation (at least one significant stenosis ≥ 50% or FFRai ≤ 0.8) was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 260 patients (138 men, 122 women) with a mean age of 78.7 ± 8.1 (standard deviation) years (age range: 51-93 years) were evaluated. Significant CAD on ICA was present in 126/260 patients (48.5%). Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.0-98.7), 68.7% (95% CI: 60.1-76.4), 74.3 % (95% CI: 69.1-78.8), 94.8% (95% CI: 88.5-97.8), and 81.9% (95% CI: 76.7-86.4) for PC-CCTA, and 96.8% (95% CI: 92.1-99.1), 87.3% (95% CI: 80.5-92.4), 87.8% (95% CI: 82.2-91.8), 96.7% (95% CI: 91.7-98.7), and 91.9% (95% CI: 87.9-94.9) for FFRai. Area under the curve of FFRai was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.95) compared to 0.82 for PC-CCTA (95% CI: 0.77-0.87) (P < 0.001). FFRai-guidance could have prevented the need for ICA in 121 out of 260 patients (46.5%) vs. 97 out of 260 (37.3%) using PC-CCTA alone (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Deep learning-based photon-counting FFRai evaluation improves the accuracy of PC-CCTA ≥ 50% stenosis detection, reduces the need for ICA, and may be incorporated into the clinical TAVR work-up for the assessment of CAD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis referred for pre-TAVR work-up between October 2021 and June 2023 were included in this retrospective tertiary single-center study. All patients underwent both PC-CCTA and ICA within three months for reference standard diagnosis. PC-CCTA stenosis quantification (at 50% level) and FFRai (at 0.8 level) were predicted using two deep learning models (CorEx, Spimed-AI). Diagnostic performance for global CAD evaluation (at least one significant stenosis ≥ 50% or FFRai ≤ 0.8) was assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 260 patients (138 men, 122 women) with a mean age of 78.7 ± 8.1 (standard deviation) years (age range: 51-93 years) were evaluated. Significant CAD on ICA was present in 126/260 patients (48.5%). Per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.0-98.7), 68.7% (95% CI: 60.1-76.4), 74.3 % (95% CI: 69.1-78.8), 94.8% (95% CI: 88.5-97.8), and 81.9% (95% CI: 76.7-86.4) for PC-CCTA, and 96.8% (95% CI: 92.1-99.1), 87.3% (95% CI: 80.5-92.4), 87.8% (95% CI: 82.2-91.8), 96.7% (95% CI: 91.7-98.7), and 91.9% (95% CI: 87.9-94.9) for FFRai. Area under the curve of FFRai was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.95) compared to 0.82 for PC-CCTA (95% CI: 0.77-0.87) (P < 0.001). FFRai-guidance could have prevented the need for ICA in 121 out of 260 patients (46.5%) vs. 97 out of 260 (37.3%) using PC-CCTA alone (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Deep learning-based photon-counting FFRai evaluation improves the accuracy of PC-CCTA ≥ 50% stenosis detection, reduces the need for ICA, and may be incorporated into the clinical TAVR work-up for the assessment of CAD.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app