Why the study?
Visual identification of focal versus diffuse coronary artery disease from coronary angiograms and FFR pullback curves is operator-dependent, prompting the need to standardize curve interpretation.
Does a virtual stenting algorithm (VSA) improve inter-rater agreement in interpreting FFR pullback curves and evaluating PCI eligibility in patients with chronic coronary syndrome?
Observational (n=34)
Does a virtual stenting algorithm (VSA) improve inter-rater agreement in interpreting FFR pullback curves and evaluating PCI eligibility in patients with chronic coronary syndrome?
The use of a virtual stenting algorithm to analyze FFR pullback curves reduces inter-rater variability and standardizes the assessment of coronary disease distribution and PCI eligibility.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support standardized FFR pullback assessment; leaves open effects on PCI eligibility decisions.
Background: Coronary artery disease distribution along the vessel is a main determinant of FFR improvement after PCI. Identifying focal from diffuse disease from visual inspections of coronary angiogram (CA) and FFR pullback (FFR-PB) are operator-dependent. Computer science may standardize interpretations of such curves. Methods: A virtual stenting algorithm (VSA) was developed to perform an automated FFR-PB curve analysis. A survey analysis of the evaluations of 39 vessels with intermediate disease on CA and a distal FFR <0.8, rated by 5 interventional cardiologists, was performed. Vessel disease distribution and PCI strategy were successively rated based on CA and distal FFR (CA); CA and FFR-PB curve (CA/FFR-PB); and CA and VSA (CA/VSA). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa and an agreement analysis of CA/VSA rating with both algorithmic and human evaluation (operator) was performed. We hypothesize that VSA would increase rater agreement in interpretation of epicardial disease distribution and subsequent evaluation of PCI eligibility. Results: Inter-rater reliability in vessel disease assessment by CA, CA/FFR-PB, and CA/VSA were respectively, 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17–0.47), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.23–0.53), and 0.4 (95% CI: 0.25–0.55). The raters' overall agreement in vessel disease distribution and PCI eligibility was higher with the VSA than with the operator (respectively, 67 vs. 42%, and 80 vs. 70%, both p < 0.05). Compared to CA/FFR-PB, CA/VSA induced more reclassification toward a focal disease (92 vs. 56.2%, p < 0.01) with a trend toward more reclassification as eligible for PCI (70.6 vs. 33%, p = 0.06). Change in PCI strategy did not differ between CA/FFR-PB and CA/VSA (23.6 vs. 28.5%, p = 0.38). Conclusions: VSA is a new program to facilitate and standardize the FFR pullback curves analysis. When expert reviewers integrate VSA data, their assessments are less variable which might help to standardize PCI eligibility and strategy evaluations. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03824600 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Argacha et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Chronic coronary syndrome with intermediate coronary lesions (n=34). Virtual stenting algorithm (VSA) vs. Operator evaluation (visual inspection) was evaluated on Overall agreement in vessel disease distribution (p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: