Why the study?
FFR and iFR improve outcomes but remain underused in clinical practice due to economic and logistic issues, prompting the development of an AI-based tool to compute them from plain coronary angiography.
Does an AI-based application accurately predict wire-based FFR and iFR from plain coronary angiography in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses?
Does an AI-based application accurately predict wire-based FFR and iFR from plain coronary angiography in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses?
An AI-based application using standard coronary angiography can accurately predict wire-based FFR and iFR, potentially offering a non-invasive alternative for physiological assessment of coronary stenoses.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Promising for non-invasive FFR/iFR assessment in intermediate stenoses; leaves open prospective outcome validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous waves-free ratio (iFR) to improve outcome of patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention, such techniques are still underused in clinical practice due to economic and logistic issues. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-based application to compute FFR and iFR from plain CA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients performing FFR or iFR or both were enrolled. A specific multi-task deep network exploiting 2 projections of the coronary of interest from standard CA was appraised. Accuracy of prediction of FFR/iFR of the AI model was the primary endpoint, along with sensitivity and specificity. Prediction was tested both for continuous values and for dichotomous classification (positive/negative) for FFR or iFR. Subgroup analyses were performed for FFR and iFR.A total of 389 patients from 5 centers were enrolled. Mean age was 67.9 ± 9.6 and 39.2% of patients were admitted for acute coronary syndrome. Overall, the accuracy was 87.3% (81.2-93.4%), with a sensitivity of 82.4% (71.9-96.4%) and a specificity of 92.2% (90.4-93.9%). For FFR, accuracy was 84.8% (77.8-91.8%), with a sensitivity of 81.9% (69.4-94.4%) and a specificity of 87.7% (85.5-89.9%), while for iFR accuracy was 90.2% (86.0-94.6%), with a sensitivity of 87.2% (76.6-97.8%) and a specificity of 93.2% (91.7-94.7%, all confidence intervals 95%). CONCLUSION: The presented machine-learning based tool showed high accuracy in prediction of wire-based FFR and iFR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filippo et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: