Key result
Fully automated AI-based stress global circumferential strain was associated with MACE in the propensity-matched population (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18; P<0.001) and those with normal CMR.
Why the study?
To determine whether fully automated AI-based global circumferential strain assessed during vasodilator stress CMR provides incremental prognostic value.
Does fully automated artificial intelligence-based global circumferential strain assessed during stress CMR provide incremental prognostic value for MACE in patients undergoing stress CMR?
Cohort (n=2,152)
Does fully automated artificial intelligence-based global circumferential strain assessed during stress CMR provide incremental prognostic value for MACE in patients undergoing stress CMR?
Hazard Ratio: 1.12 (95% CI 1.06–1.18)
p-value: p=<0.001
Fully automated AI-based global circumferential strain during stress CMR provides incremental prognostic value for predicting MACE in patients with normal stress CMR, but not in those with ischaemia.
AIMS: To determine whether fully automated artificial intelligence-based global circumferential strain (GCS) assessed during vasodilator stress cardiovascular (CV) magnetic resonance (CMR) can provide incremental prognostic value. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2018, a longitudinal study included all consecutive patients with abnormal stress CMR defined by the presence of inducible ischaemia and/or late gadolinium enhancement. Control subjects with normal stress CMR were selected using a propensity score-matching. Stress-GCS was assessed using a fully automatic machine-learning algorithm based on featured-tracking imaging from short-axis cine images. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse clinical events (MACE) defined as CV mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Cox regressions evaluated the association between stress-GCS and the primary outcome after adjustment for traditional prognosticators. In 2152 patients [66 ± 12 years, 77% men, 1:1 matched patients (1076 with normal and 1076 with abnormal CMR)], stress-GCS was associated with MACE [median follow-up 5.2 (4.8-5.5) years] after adjustment for risk factors in the propensity-matched population [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.18)], and patients with normal CMR [adjusted HR, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.19-1.53), both P < 0.001], but not in patients with abnormal CMR (P = 0.058). In patients with normal CMR, an increased stress-GCS showed the best improvement in model discrimination and reclassification above traditional and stress CMR findings (C-statistic improvement: 0.14; NRI = 0.430; IDI = 0.089, all P < 0.001; LR-test P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Stress-GCS is not a predictor of MACE in patients with ischaemia, but has an incremental prognostic value in those with a normal CMR although the absolute event rate remains low.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pezel et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing stress CMR (n=2,152). Artificial intelligence-based fully automated global circumferential strain (stress-GCS) was evaluated on Major adverse clinical events (MACE) defined as CV mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.18, p=<0.001). Fully automated AI-based stress global circumferential strain was associated with MACE in the propensity-matched population (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18; P<0.001) and those with normal CMR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: