Key result
AI-based angioNHPR demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 76.6% and an AUC of 0.81 for detecting hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease compared to invasive NHPR.
Why the study?
Angiography-derived non-hyperemic pressure ratio is a novel AI-based index that eliminates the need for pressure wires, but its diagnostic accuracy for detecting hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease required investigation.
Does AI-based angiography-derived non-hyperemic pressure ratio (angioNHPR) accurately detect hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease compared to invasive NHPR in patients with 30-90% angiographic stenoses?
Observational (n=178)
Blinded
No
Does AI-based angiography-derived non-hyperemic pressure ratio (angioNHPR) accurately detect hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease compared to invasive NHPR in patients with 30-90% angiographic stenoses?
Effect estimate: Accuracy 76.6% (95% CI 70.4-82.0)
AI-based angiography-derived non-hyperemic pressure ratio (angioNHPR) demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy for detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenoses without the need for invasive pressure wires.
AngioNHPR may enable wire-free CAD assessment; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: The angiography-derived non-hyperemic pressure ratio (angioNHPR) is a novel index of NHPR based on artificial intelligence (AI) that does not require pressure wires. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of angioNHPR for detecting hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective single-center study, angioNHPR was assessed using the invasive NHPR as the reference standard. An angioNHPR ≤0.89 was defined as indicative of physiologically significant stenosis. Two angiographic projections ≥30° difference in angulation were selected. The lumen and centerline were automatically segmented by the prototype software, allowing for the calculation of the angioNHPR. We assessed 222 vessels from 178 patients. The accuracy of angioNHPR was 76.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.4-82.0), with sensitivity 66.2% (95% CI 54.0-77.0), specificity 81.5% (95% CI 74.3-87.3), positive predictive value 62.7% (95% CI 53.6-70.9), and negative predictive value 83.7% (95% CI 78.6-87.7). The angioNHPR showed good correlation with invasive NHPR (r=0.72; 95% CI 0.64-0.77; P<0.001), and the agreement between angioNHPR and invasive NHPR was -0.01 (limits of agreement: -0.13, 0.11). The area under the curve (AUC) of angioNHPR was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.86), which was significantly higher than that of 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (AUC 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.75; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: AI-based angioNHPR demonstrates good diagnostic performance using invasive NHPR as the reference standard.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omori et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=178). AI-based angiography-derived non-hyperemic pressure ratio (angioNHPR) vs. Invasive non-hyperemic pressure ratio (NHPR) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for detecting hemodynamically relevant CAD (invasive NHPR ≤0.89) (Accuracy 76.6%, 95% CI 70.4-82.0). AI-based angioNHPR demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 76.6% and an AUC of 0.81 for detecting hemodynamically relevant coronary artery disease compared to invasive NHPR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: