A team of Australian researchers developed an echo AI solution that accurately assesses patients’ aortic stenosis (AS) severity levels, including many patients with severe AS who might go undetected using current methods.
The researchers trained their AI-Decision Support Algorithm (AI-DSA) using the Australian Echo Database, which features more than 1M echo exams from over 630k patients, and includes the patients’ 5-year mortality outcomes.
Using 179k echo exams from the same Australian Echo Database, the researchers found that AI-DSA detected…
- Moderate-to-severe AS in 2,606 patients, who had a 56.2% five-year mortality rate
- Severe AS in 4,622 patients, who had a 67.9% five-year mortality rate
Those mortality rates are far higher than the study’s remaining 171,826 patients (22.9% 5yr rate), giving the individuals that AI-DSA classified with moderate-to-severe or severe AS significantly higher odds of dying within five years (Adjusted odds ratios: 1.82 & 2.80).
AI-DSA also served as a valuable complement to current methods, as 33% of the patients that AI-DSA identified with severe AS would not have been detected using the current echo assessment guidelines. However, severe AS patients who were only flagged by the AI-DSA algorithm had similar 5-year mortality rates as patients who were flagged by both AI-DSA and the current guidelines (64.4% vs. 69.1%).
There’s been a lot of promising echo AI research lately, but most studies have highlighted the technology’s performance in comparison to sonographers. This new study suggests that echo AI might also help identify high-risk AS patients who wouldn’t be detected by sonographers (at least if they are using current methods), potentially steering more patients towards life-saving aortic valve replacement procedures.
The major cardiac imaging societies weighed-in on the AHA/ACC’s new Chest Pain Guidelines, highlighting the notable shifts coming to cardiac imaging, and the adjustments they could require.
The cardiac CT and MRI societies took a victory lap, highlighting CCTA and CMR’s now-greater role in chest pain diagnosis, while forecasting that the new guideline will bring:
- Increased demand for cardiac CT & MR exams and scanners
- A need for more cardiac CT & MR staff, training, and infrastructure
- Requests for more cardiac CT & MR funding and reimbursements
- More collaborations across radiology, cardiology, and emergency medicine
The angiography and nuclear cardiology societies were less celebratory. Rather than warning providers to start buying more scanners and training more techs (like CT & MR), they focused on defending their roles in chest pain diagnosis, reiterating their advantages, and pointing out how the new guidelines might incorrectly steer patients to unnecessary or insufficient tests.
FFR-CT’s new role as a key post-CT diagnostic step made headlines when the guidelines came out, but the cardiac imaging societies don’t seem to be ready to welcome the AI approach. The nuclear cardiology and radiology societies called out FFR-CT’s low adoption and limited supporting evidence, while the SCCT didn’t even mention FFR-CT in its statement (and they’re the cardiac CT society!).
Echocardiography maintained its core role in chest pain diagnosis, but the echo society clearly wanted more specific guidelines around who can perform echo and how well they’re trained to perform those exams. That reaction is understandable given the sonographer workforce challenges and the expansion of cardiac POCUS to new clinical roles (w/ less echo training), although some might argue that echo AI tools might help address these problems.
Imaging and shared decision-making play a prominent role in the new chest pain guidelines, which seems like good news for patient-specific care (and imaging department/vendor revenues), but it also leaves room for debate within the clinic and across clinical societies.
The JACC seems to understand that it needs to clear up many of these gray areas in future versions of the chest pain guidelines. Until then, it will be up to providers to create decision-making and care pathways that work best for them, and evolve their teams and technologies accordingly.
A new AJR study out of Toronto General Hospital highlighted the largely-untapped potential of non-gated chest CT CAC scoring, and the significant impact it could have with widespread adoption.
Current guidelines recommend visual CAC evaluations with all non-gated non-contrast chest CTs. However, these guidelines aren’t consistently followed and they exclude contrast-enhanced chest CTs.
The researchers challenged these practices, performing visual CAC assessments on 260 patients’ non-gated chest CT exams (116 contrast-enhanced, 144 non-contrast) and comparing them to the same patients’ cardiac CT CAC scores (performed within 12-months) and ~6-year cardiac event outcomes.
As you might expect, visual contrast-enhanced and non-contrast chest CT CAC scoring:
- Detected CAC with high sensitivity (83% & 90%) and specificity (both 100%)
- Accurately predicted major cardiac events (Hazard ratios: 4.5 & 3.4)
- Had relatively benign false negatives (0 of 26 had cardiac events)
- Achieved high inter-observer agreement (κ=0.89 & 0.95)
Considering that CAC scores were only noted in 37% of the patients’ original non-contrast chest CT reports and 23% of their contrast-enhanced chest CT reports, this study adds solid evidence in favor of more widespread CAC score reporting in non-gated CT exams.
That might also prove to be good news for the folks working on opportunistic CAC AI solutions, noting that AI has (so far) seen the greatest adoption when it supports processes that most radiologists are actually doing.
A new AJR study showed that Cleerly’s coronary CTA AI solution detects obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) more accurately than myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), and could substantially reduce unnecessary invasive angiographies.
The researchers used Cleerly to analyze Coronary CTAs from 301 patients with stable myocardial ischemia symptoms who also received stress MPI exams. They then compared these Cleerly CCTA and MPI results with the patients’ invasive angiography exams, and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements.
The Cleerly-based coronary CTA results significantly outperformed MPI for predicting stenosis and caught cases that MPI-based ischemia results didn’t flag:
- Cleerly AI detected more patients with obstructive stenosis (≥50%; 0.88 vs. 0.66 AUCs)
- Cleerly AI identified more patients with severe stenosis (≥70%; 0.92 vs. 0.81 AUCs)
- Cleerly AI detected far more patients with signs of ischemia in FFR (<0.80; 0.90 vs. 0.71 AUCs)
- Out of 102 patients with negative MPI ischemia results, Cleerly identified 55 patients with obstructive stenosis and 20 with severe stenosis (54% & 20%)
- Out of 199 patients with positive MPI ischemia results, Cleerly identified 46 patients with non-obstructive stenosis (23%)
MPI and Cleerly-based CCTA analysis also worked well together. The combination of ≥50% stenosis via Cleerly and ischemia in MPI achieved 95% sensitivity and 63% specificity for detecting serious stenosis (vs. 74% & 43% using QCA measurements).
Based on those results, pathways that use a Cleerly AI-based CCTA benchmark of ≥70% stenosis to approve patients for invasive angiography would reduce invasive angiography utilization by 39%. Meanwhile, workflows requiring a positive MPI ischemia result and CCTA Cleerly AI benchmark of ≥70% would reduce invasive angiography utilization by 49%.
We’re seeing strong research and policy momentum towards using coronary CTA as the primary CAD diagnosis method and reducing reliance on invasive angiography. This and other recent studies suggest that CCTA AI solutions like Cleerly could play a major role in that CCTA-first shift.
A major new study from the DISCHARGE Trial Group showed that coronary CT is as effective as invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for the management of patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), potentially challenging current guidelines.
Background – Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is the reference standard for diagnosing and managing CAD and it’s performed over 3.5 million times each year in the European Union alone (many more millions globally). However, over 60% of these exams prove negative and theoretically could have been diagnosed via non-invasive CT exams.
The Study – The randomized, multi-center trial (26 sites, 16 EU countries) used CT or ICA as the initial diagnostic and treatment guidance exam for 3,523 patients with stable chest pain and intermediate probability of obstructive CAD (1,808 patients w/ CT). By the end of the study’s 3.5-year follow-up period, patients in the CT group had:
- A lower rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (2.1% vs. 3% w/ ICA)
- A far lower major procedure-related complication rate (0.5% vs. 1.9% w/ ICA)
- A slightly higher rate of reported angina (8.8% vs. 7.5% w/ ICA)
These results suggest that following a CT-first strategy for evaluating patients with a medium risk of CAD produces similar longer-term outcomes as the current ICA-first strategy (maybe even better outcomes), while significantly reducing major complications and unnecessary cath lab procedures.
That’s pretty compelling and could actually influence procedural changes, given the size / credibility of the DISCHARGE Trial Group and the fact that CT was already proposed in the Chest Pain Guidelines as a gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography.
A new Radiology Journal study found that combining Triple-rule-out CT (TRO CT) with Late Contrast Enhancement CT (LCE CT) significantly improves acute chest pain diagnosis.
Background – It’s traditionally been challenging to diagnose patients with acute chest pain and mild troponin rise, as TRO CT is effective for several key diagnoses (coronary artery disease, acute aortic syndrome, pulmonary embolism) but can’t identify nonvascular causes of myocardial injury.
The Study – The researchers examined 84 troponin-positive patients with acute chest pain using TRO CT, and then performed LCE CT exams on the 42 patients who had negative/inconclusive results.
The Results – The added LCE CT exams revealed positive/conclusive findings in 34 of the 42 previously-negative/inconclusive patients (including 22 w/ myocarditis), improving overall diagnostic rates from 50% to 90% (from 42/84 to 76/84).
The Takeaway – This new TRO CT + LCE CT protocol could make cardiac CT a “one-stop shop” for diagnosing acute chest pain, eliminating the need for follow-up MRI exams and allowing faster diagnoses. That’s especially notable considering that CT is already recommended for patients with low-risk acute chest pain (to exclude CAD) and was recently proposed as a gatekeeper for invasive coronary angiography.
If it seemed like coronary imaging folks were more excited than usual last week, it’s because the AHA/ACC’s long-awaited chest pain guidelines just set the stage for a lot more imaging.
The Guidelines – The American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) released their first clinical guidelines for the assessment and diagnosis of chest pain, outlining a range of new standards, processes, and pathways, while giving coronary imaging a central diagnostic role.
Front-Line Coronary CTA – The new guidelines made coronary CTA a front-line coronary artery disease test, assigning CCTA their highest recommendation level and proposing it for a large group of patients (mid-high risk of CAD, stable chest pain, <65yrs).
FFRct Next in Line – HeartFlow’s FFRct analysis will often serve as the next diagnostic step when CCTA exams reveal obstructive CAD (40-90% stenosis) or are inconclusive, with FFRct results either clarifying diagnosis or supporting treatment decisions.
Stress Imaging Pathways – The AHA/ACC guidelines also gave stress imaging (e.g. TTE, echo, CMRI, PET, etc.) their highest recommendation level, positioning stress imaging for more serious cases (likely or confirmed obstructive CAD, ≥65yrs) as well as for diagnosing myocardial ischemia and estimating risks of major cardiac events among patients with less severe cases (intermediate risk, no known CAD, acute chest pain).
Takeaway – These new guidelines are a big deal for coronary imaging, given the millions of people who show up at US emergency departments with chest pain each year. It’s also going to require some big changes across EDs, imaging centers, and radiology departments/practices, who will have to retool their imaging protocols/fleets and be able to expertly interpret a wave of coronary imaging exams (and handle a wave of incidentals).
A new study in Circulation used coronary CTA scans and CAC scoring to reveal a surprisingly high prevalence of “silent” coronary artery atherosclerosis in the general population, suggesting that this could “lay the foundation” for future CT-based cardiac screening programs.
The Study – The researchers analyzed CCTA and CAC exams from 25k randomly recruited Swedish participants (50-64yrs, none w/ known coronary heart disease) finding that:
- 42% had CCTA-detected atherosclerosis
- 8.3% had noncalcified plaques
- 5.2% had significant stenosis
- 1.9% had serious coronary artery diseases
- All participants with >400 CAC scores had atherosclerosis (yes, 100%), and 45.7% had significant stenosis
- Some participants with 0 CAC scores had atherosclerosis (5.5%) and significant stenosis (0.4%)
- So, CAC-based screening might still miss some at-risk patients
The Takeaway – 2021 brought a notable surge in academic and business efforts focused on CT-based cardiac screening, and this study’s revelation about “silent” atherosclerosis in the general population suggests that cardiac screening’s momentum will continue.