Non-invasive Derivation of Instantaneous Free-wave Ratio from Invasive Coronary Angiography Using a New Deep Learning Artificial Intelligence Model and Comparison with Human Operators' Performance

Overview

Journal Int J Cardiovasc Imaging

Publisher Springer

Specialty Radiology

Date 2025 Mar 10

PMID 40063156

Authors

Catarina Oliveira

Marta Vilela

Joao Silva Marques

Claudia Jorge

Tiago Rodrigues

Ana Rita Francisco

Rita Marante de Oliveira

Beatriz Silva

Joao Lourenco Silva

Arlindo L Oliveira

Fausto J Pinto

Miguel Nobre Menezes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Invasive coronary physiology is underused and carries risks/costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) might enable non-invasive physiology from invasive coronary angiography (CAG), possibly outperforming humans, but has seldom been explored, especially for instantaneous wave-free Ratio (iFR). We aimed to develop binary iFR lesion classification AI models and compare them with human performance. single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing CAG and iFR. A validated encoder-decoder convolutional neural network (CNN) performed segmentation. Manual annotation of target vessel and pressure sensor location on a segmented telediastolic frame followed. Three AI models classified lesions as positive (≤ 0.89) or negative (> 0.89). Model 1 uses preprocessed vessel diameters with a transformer. Models 2/3 are EfficientNet-B5 CNNs using concatenated angiography and segmentation - Model 3 employs class-frequency-weighted Cross-Entropy Loss. Previous findings demonstrated Model 3's superiority for left anterior descending (LAD) and Model 1's for circumflex (Cx)/right coronary artery (RCA) - they were therefore unified into a vessel-based model. Ten-fold patient-level cross-validation enabled full sample training/testing. Three experienced operators performed binary iFR classification using single frames of raw/segmented images. Comparison metrics were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Across 250 measurements, AI accuracy was 72%, PPV 48%, NPV 90%, sensitivity 77%, and specificity 71%. Human accuracy ranged from 54 to 74%. NPV was high for the Cx/RCA (AI: 96/98%; operators: 94/97%), but AI significantly outperformed humans in the LAD (78% vs. 60-64%). An AI model capable of binary iFR lesions classification mildly outperformed interventional cardiologists, supporting further validation studies.

References

Faria D, Hennessey B, Shabbir A, Mejia-Renteria H, Wang L, Lee J . Functional coronary angiography for the assessment of the epicardial vessels and the microcirculation. EuroIntervention. 2023; 19(3):203-221. PMC: 10266405. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00969. View

Neumann F, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning A, Benedetto U . 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2018; 40(2):87-165. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394. View

Lawton J, Tamis-Holland J, Bangalore S, Bates E, Beckie T, Bischoff J . 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021; 145(3):e18-e114. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038. View

Tonino P, De Bruyne B, Pijls N, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van t Veer M . Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3):213-24. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611. View

De Bruyne B, Pijls N, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z . Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(11):991-1001. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205361. View

Xaplanteris P, Fournier S, Pijls N, Fearon W, Barbato E, Tonino P . Five-Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(3):250-259. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803538. View

Puymirat E, Cayla G, Simon T, Steg P, Montalescot G, Durand-Zaleski I . Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385(4):297-308. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104650. View

Rioufol G, Derimay F, Roubille F, Perret T, Motreff P, Angoulvant D . Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021; 78(19):1875-1885. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.061. View

van de Hoef T, Meuwissen M, Escaned J, Sen S, Petraco R, van Lavieren M . Head-to-head comparison of basal stenosis resistance index, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and fractional flow reserve: diagnostic accuracy for stenosis-specific myocardial ischaemia. EuroIntervention. 2014; 11(8):914-25. DOI: 10.4244/EIJY14M08_17. View

10.

Gotberg M, Christiansen E, Gudmundsdottir I, Sandhall L, Danielewicz M, Jakobsen L . Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(19):1813-1823. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1616540. View

11.

Gotberg M, Berntorp K, Rylance R, Christiansen E, Yndigegn T, Gudmundsdottir I . 5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022; 79(10):965-974. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.12.030. View

12.

Nobre Menezes M, Francisco A, Carrilho Ferreira P, Jorge C, Torres D, Cardoso P . Comparative analysis of fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio: Results of a five-year registry. Rev Port Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2018; 37(6):511-520. DOI: 10.1016/j.repc.2017.11.011. View

13.

Escaned J, Echavarria-Pinto M, Garcia-Garcia H, van de Hoef T, de Vries T, Kaul P . Prospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio to Assess Coronary Stenosis Relevance: Results of ADVISE II International, Multicenter Study (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(6):824-833. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.01.029. View

14.

Davies J, Sen S, Dehbi H, Al-Lamee R, Petraco R, Nijjer S . Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(19):1824-1834. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700445. View

15.

Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Fineschi M, Musumeci G, Marchese A, Leone A . Evolving Routine Standards in Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment of Coronary Stenosis: The Nationwide Italian SICI-GISE Cross-Sectional ERIS Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(15):1482-1491. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.04.037. View

17.

Fearon W, Achenbach S, Engstrom T, Assali A, Shlofmitz R, Jeremias A . Accuracy of Fractional Flow Reserve Derived From Coronary Angiography. Circulation. 2018; 139(4):477-484. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037350. View

18.

Chu M, Wu P, Li G, Yang W, Gutierrez-Chico J, Tu S . Advances in Diagnosis, Therapy, and Prognosis of Coronary Artery Disease Powered by Deep Learning Algorithms. JACC Asia. 2023; 3(1):1-14. PMC: 9982227. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2022.12.005. View

19.

Silva B, Marques J, Nobre Menezes M, Oliveira A, Pinto F . Artificial intelligence-based diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: Development of a machine learning model using 12-lead electrocardiogram. Rev Port Cardiol. 2023; 42(7):643-651. DOI: 10.1016/j.repc.2023.03.016. View

20.

Narula S, Shameer K, Omar A, Dudley J, Sengupta P . Machine-Learning Algorithms to Automate Morphological and Functional Assessments in 2D Echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(21):2287-2295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.08.062. View

21.

Ngo T, Lu Z, Carneiro G . Combining deep learning and level set for the automated segmentation of the left ventricle of the heart from cardiac cine magnetic resonance. Med Image Anal. 2016; 35:159-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2016.05.009. View