Segmentation of X‐ray coronary angiography with an artificial intelligence deep learning model: Impact in operator visual assessment of coronary stenosis severity

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions Vol. 102; no. 4; pp. 631 - 640
• Main Authors: Nobre Menezes, Miguel, Silva, Beatriz, Silva, João Lourenço, Rodrigues, Tiago, Marques, João Silva, Guerreiro, Cláudio, Guedes, João Pedro, Oliveira‐Santos, Manuel, Oliveira, Arlindo L., Pinto, Fausto J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.10.2023
• Subjects: Angiography; Artificial intelligence; Deep learning; Lesions; Medical imaging; Segmentation; Stenosis; Trinucleotide repeats; coronary artery disease; deep learning; percutaneous coronary intervention; machine learning; artificial intelligence; coronary angiography
• ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X; 1522-726X
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30805

Visual assessment of the percentage diameter stenosis (%DS ) of lesions is essential in coronary angiography (CAG) interpretation. We have previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model capable of accurate CAG segmentation. We aim to compare operators' %DS in angiography versus AI-segmented images. Quantitative coronary analysis (QCA) %DS (%DS ) was previously performed in our published validation dataset. Operators were asked to estimate %DS of lesions in angiography versus AI-segmented images in separate sessions and differences were assessed using angiography %DS as reference. A total of 123 lesions were included. %DS was significantly higher in both the angiography (77% ± 20% vs. 56% ± 13%, p < 0.001) and segmentation groups (59% ± 20% vs. 56% ± 13%, p < 0.001), with a much smaller absolute %DS difference in the latter. For lesions with %DS of 50%-70% (60% ± 5%), an even higher discrepancy was found (angiography: 83% ± 13% vs. 60% ± 5%, p < 0.001; segmentation: 63% ± 15% vs. 60% ± 5%, p < 0.001). Similar, less pronounced, findings were observed for %DS  < 50% lesions, but not %DS  > 70% lesions. Agreement between %DS /%DS across %DS strata (<50%, 50%-70%, >70%) was approximately twice in the segmentation group (60.4% vs. 30.1%; p < 0.001). %DS inter-operator differences were smaller with segmentation. %DS was much less discrepant with segmentation versus angiography. Overestimation of %DS  < 70% lesions with angiography was especially common. Segmentation may reduce %DS overestimation and thus unwarranted revascularization.