Key result
Automated deep learning model predicts LVEF <40% from coronary angiography with ~0.89 AUC.
Why the study?
Echocardiography may not be immediately available during catheterization, particularly in AMI, and whether LVEF can be reliably inferred directly from routine coronary angiography in a fully automated manner remains uncertain.
Does a fully automated deep learning framework applied to coronary angiography videos accurately predict reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <40%) compared to transthoracic echocardiography in patients undergoing coronary angiography and those with acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=4,330)
Yes
Does a fully automated deep learning framework applied to coronary angiography videos accurately predict reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <40%) compared to transthoracic echocardiography in patients undergoing coronary angiography and those with acute myocardial infarction?
A fully automated deep learning framework can reliably identify reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <40%) directly from routine coronary angiography videos, including in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction where rapid echocardiography may be unavailable.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid LVEF assessment during catheterization; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Background Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a key determinant of prognosis and therapeutic decision-making in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG). However, echocardiography may not be immediately available during catheterization, particularly in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Whether LVEF can be reliably inferred directly from routine CAG in a fully automated manner remains uncertain. Purpose To develop and validate a fully automated end-to-end deep learning framework for predicting reduced LVEF from CAG videos, and to assess its robustness in an independent AMI cohort. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 4,256 CAG paired with transthoracic echocardiography within 7 days. Reduced systolic function was defined as LVEF <40%. A fully automated pipeline was implemented, incorporating diagnostic-content filtering, quality control, and exam-level aggregation. A SlowFast-based video model combined with adaptive data-repair optimization was trained to generate study-level predictions. Performance was evaluated on a held-out internal test set and an independent external AMI cohort (n=74). Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals. Results On the internal test set, the late-phase configuration achieved an AUC of 0.89, with a sensitivity of 0.72 and a specificity of 0.91. Performance remained stable across sex, age, and comorbidity subgroups (all AUC >0.84). Robust discrimination was preserved when inference was restricted to a subset of projections (AUC 0.87–0.88), supporting stability under heterogeneous acquisition conditions. In the external AMI cohort, overall discrimination remained consistent (AUC 0.86). Conclusion A fully automated end-to-end deep learning framework can assess left ventricular systolic dysfunction directly from routine CAG with robust performance across acquisition variability and external validation in AMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF <40%) and acute myocardial infarction (n=4,330). Fully automated deep learning framework (SlowFast-based video model) applied to coronary angiography vs. Transthoracic echocardiography within 7 days (reference standard for LVEF <40%) was evaluated on Discrimination for predicting reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF <40%) (AUC 0.89 (internal test set); AUC 0.86 (external AMI cohort)). A fully automated deep learning model predicted LVEF <40% from coronary angiography with an AUC of 0.89 internally (sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.91) and 0.86 in an external AMI cohort.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: