Skip to main content

Do plaque-related factors affect the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence coronary-assisted diagnosis system? Comparison with invasive coronary angiography

European Radiology volume 32, pages 1866–1878 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of plaque-related factors on the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence coronary-assisted diagnosis system (AI-CADS).

Methods

Patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were retrospectively included in this study. The degree of stenosis in each vessel was collected from CCTA and ICA, and the information on plaque-related factors (plaque length, plaque type, and coronary artery calcium score (CAC)) of the vessels with plaques was collected from CCTA.

Results

In total, 1224 vessels in 306 patients (166 men; 65.7 ± 10.1 years) were analyzed. Of these, 391 vessels in 249 patients showed significant stenosis using ICA as the gold standard. Using per-vessel as the unit, the area under the curves of coronary stenosis ≥ 50% for AI-CADS, doctor, and AI-CADS + doctor was 0.764, 0.837, and 0.853, respectively. The accuracies in interpreting the degree of coronary stenosis were 56.0%, 68.1%, and 71.2%, respectively. Seven hundred fifty vessels showed plaques on CCTA; plaque type did not affect the interpretation results by AI-CADS (chi-square test: p = 0.0093; multiple logistic regression: p = 0.4937). However, the interpretation results for plaque length (chi-square test: p < 0.0001; multiple logistic regression: p = 0.0061) and CACs (chi-square test: p < 0.0001; multiple logistic regression: p = 0.0001) were significantly different.

Conclusion

AI-CADS has an ability to distinguish ≥ 50% coronary stenosis, but additional manual interpretation based on AI-CADS is necessary. The plaque length and CACs will affect the diagnostic performance of AI-CADS.

Key Points

• AI-CADS can help radiologists quickly assess CCTA and improve diagnostic confidence.

• Additional manual interpretation on the basis of AI-CADS is necessary.

• The plaque length and CACs will affect the diagnostic performance of AI-CADS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Abbreviations

AI-CADS:

Artificial intelligence coronary-assisted diagnosis system

AUC:

Area under the curve

CABG:

Coronary artery bypass grafting

CACs:

Coronary artery calcium score

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CCTA:

Coronary computed tomography angiography

CI:

Confidence interval

ICA:

Invasive coronary angiography

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

PPV:

Positive predictive value

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

References

  1. Roth GA, Johnson C, Abajobir A et al (2017) Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular diseases for 10 causes, 1990 to 2015. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Shaw LJ, Hausleiter J, Achenbach S et al (2012) Coronary computed tomographic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures: results from the multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:2103–2114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.05.062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thilo C, Gebregziabher M, Meinel FG et al (2015) Computer-aided stenosis detection at coronary CT angiography: effect on performance of readers with different experience levels. Eur Radiol 25:694–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3460-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnoldi E, Gebregziabher M, Schoepf UJ et al (2010) Automated computer-aided stenosis detection at coronary CT angiography: initial experience. Eur Radiol 20:1160–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1644-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen M, Wang X, Hao G et al (2020) Diagnostic performance of deep learning-based vascular extraction and stenosis detection technique for coronary artery disease. Br J Radiol 93:20191028. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20191028

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Rief M, Kranz A, Hartmann L, Roehle R, Laule M, Dewey M (2014) Computer-aided CT coronary artery stenosis detection: comparison with human reading and quantitative coronary angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30:1621–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-014-0513-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abramowicz AJ, Daubert MA, Malhotra V et al (2013) Computer-aided analysis of 64-slice coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison with manual interpretation. Heart Int 8:e2. https://doi.org/10.4081/hi.2013.e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. AbdAlamir M, Noack P, Jang KH, Moore JA, Goldberg R, Poon M (2018) Computer-aided analysis of 64- and 320-slice coronary computed tomography angiography: a comparison with expert human interpretation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 34:1473–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-018-1361-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kang KW, Chang HJ, Shim H et al (2012) Feasibility of an automatic computer-assisted algorithm for the detection of significant coronary artery disease in patients presenting with acute chest pain. Eur J Radiol 81:e640-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.01.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Anders K, Achenbach S, Petit I, Daniel WG, Uder M, Pflederer T (2013) Accuracy of automated software-guided detection of significant coronary artery stenosis by CT angiography: comparison with invasive catheterisation. Eur Radiol 23:1218–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2717-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaw LJ, Blankstein R, Bax JJ et al (2020) Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography / North American Society of Cardiovascular Imaging – expert consensus document on coronary CT imaging of atherosclerotic plaque. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 15(2):93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcct.2020.11.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krone RJ, Laskey WK, Johnson C et al (2000) A simplified lesion classification for predicting success and complications of coronary angioplasty. Registry Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention. Am J Cardiol 85:1179–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(00)00724-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cury RC, Abbara S, Achenbach S et al (2016) Coronary artery disease - reporting and data system (CAD-RADS): an expert consensus document of SCCT, ACR and NASCI: Endorsed by the ACC. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9:1099–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boogers MJ, Schuijf JD, Kitslaar PH et al (2010) Automated quantification of stenosis severity on 64-slice CT: a comparison with quantitative coronary angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 3:699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.01.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meyer M, Schoepf UJ, Fink C et al (2013) Diagnostic performance evaluation of a computer-aided simple triage system for coronary CT angiography in patients with intermediate risk for acute coronary syndrome. Acad Radiol 20:980–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.02.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ko BS, Wong DT, Cameron JD et al (2015) The ASLA Score: A CT Angiographic index to predict functionally significant coronary stenoses in lesions with intermediate severity-diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 276:91–101. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15141231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rossi A, Papadopoulou SL, Pugliese F et al (2014) Quantitative computed tomographic coronary angiography: does it predict functionally significant coronary stenoses. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 7:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.112.000277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. López-Palop R, Carrillo P, Cordero A et al (2013) Effect of lesion length on functional significance of intermediate long coronary lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 81:E186-194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.24459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leber AW, Becker A, Knez A et al (2006) Accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography to classify and quantify plaque volumes in the proximal coronary system: a comparative study using intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:672–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.10.058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang DK, Im NJ, Park SM, Lim HS (2011) CT comparison of visual and computerised quantification of coronary stenosis according to plaque composition. Eur Radiol 21:712–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1970-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Otsuka M, Bruining N, Van Pelt NC et al (2008) Quantification of coronary plaque by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparison with quantitative intracoronary ultrasound. Invest Radiol 43:314–321. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31816a88a9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mitsutake R, Niimura H, Miura S et al (2006) Clinical significance of the coronary calcification score by multidetector row computed tomography for the evaluation of coronary stenosis in Japanese patients. Circ J 70:1122–1127. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.70.1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nicoll R, Wiklund U, Zhao Y et al (2016) The coronary calcium score is a more accurate predictor of significant coronary stenosis than conventional risk factors in symptomatic patients: Euro-CCAD study. Int J Cardiol 207:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.01.056

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Polonsky TS, McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW et al (2010) Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction. JAMA 303:1610–1616. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH et al (2007) ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:378–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sangiorgi G, Rumberger JA, Severson A et al (1998) Arterial calcification and not lumen stenosis is highly correlated with atherosclerotic plaque burden in humans: a histologic study of 723 coronary artery segments using nondecalcifying methodology. J Am Coll Cardiol 31:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00443-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rumberger JA, Sheedy PF, Breen JF, Schwartz RS (1995) Coronary calcium, as determined by electron beam computed tomography, and coronary disease on arteriogram: effect of patient’s sex on diagnosis. Circulation 91:1363–1367. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.91.5.1363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ong TK, Chin SP, Liew CK et al (2006) Accuracy of 64-row multidetector computed tomography in detecting coronary artery disease in 134 symptomatic patients: influence of calcification. Am Heart J 151:1323.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2005.12.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Skinner JS, Smeeth L, Kendall JM, Adams PC, Timmis A (2010) NICE guidance. Chest pain of recent onset: assessment and diagnosis of recent onset chest pain or discomfort of suspected cardiac origin. Heart 96:974–978. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2009.190066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to American Journal Experts (AJE) for their assistance with language editing. This study was supported by the Kuanren Talents Program of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (2020-7, 2021-24).

Funding

This study has received funding from the Kuanren Talents Program of the second affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University (2020–7, 2021–24).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jie Xu and Linli Chen contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Jie Xu, Linli Chen, Xiaojia Wu, Chuanming Li, Guangyong Ai, Yuexi Liu, Bitong Tian, Dajing Guo & Zheng Fang

Authors
  1. Jie Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linli Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaojia Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chuanming Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guangyong Ai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuexi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bitong Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dajing Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Zheng Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dajing Guo or Zheng Fang.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dajing Guo.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

  • retrospective

  • observational

  • performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, J., Chen, L., Wu, X. et al. Do plaque-related factors affect the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence coronary-assisted diagnosis system? Comparison with invasive coronary angiography. Eur Radiol 32, 1866–1878 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08299-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08299-6

Keywords

  • Computed tomography angiography
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Coronary stenosis