Algorithmic Versus Expert Human Interpretation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Coronary Pressure-Wire Pull Back Data

• Published in: JACC. Cardiovascular interventions Vol. 12; no. 14; pp. 1315 - 1324
• Main Authors: Cook, Christopher M., Warisawa, Takayuki, Howard, James P., Keeble, Thomas R., Iglesias, Juan F., Schampaert, Erick, Bhindi, Ravinay, Ambrosia, Alphonse, Matsuo, Hitoshi, Nishina, Hidetaka, Kikuta, Yuetsu, Shiono, Yasutsugu, Nakayama, Masafumi, Doi, Shunichi, Takai, Manabu, Goto, Sonoka, Yakuta, Yohei, Karube, Kenichi, Akashi, Yoshihiro J., Clesham, Gerald J., Kelly, Paul A., Davies, John R., Karamasis, Grigoris V., Kawase, Yoshiaki, Robinson, Nicholas M., Sharp, Andrew S.P., Escaned, Javier, Davies, Justin E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 22.07.2019; Elsevier
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; artificial intelligence; Cardiac Catheterization - instrumentation; Cardiac Catheters; Clinical Decision-Making; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis; Coronary Artery Disease - physiopathology; Coronary Artery Disease - therapy; Coronary Circulation; coronary physiology; Decision Support Techniques; Europe; Female; Hemodynamics; Humans; iFR; instantaneous wave-free ratio; Japan; Male; Middle Aged; Observer Variation; Patient Selection; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Predictive Value of Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; Transducers, Pressure; Europe; Japan; instantaneous wave-free ratio; percutaneous coronary intervention; iFR; PCI; AI; IQR; HT; artificial intelligence; coronary physiology
• ISSN: 1936-8798; 1876-7605; 1876-7605
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.05.025

The aim of this study was to investigate whether algorithmic interpretation (AI) of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) pressure-wire pull back data would be noninferior to expert human interpretation. Interpretation of iFR pressure-wire pull back data can be complex and is subjective. Fifteen human experts interpreted 1,008 iFR pull back traces (691 unique, 317 duplicate). For each trace, experts determined the hemodynamic appropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and, in such cases, the optimal physiological strategy for PCI. The heart team (HT) interpretation was determined by consensus of the individual expert opinions. The same 1,008 pull back traces were also interpreted algorithmically. The coprimary hypotheses of this study were that AI would be noninferior to the interpretation of the median expert human in determining: 1) the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI; and 2) the physiological strategy for PCI. Regarding the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI, the median expert human demonstrated 89.3% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.4% for AI (p < 0.01 for noninferiority). Across the 372 cases judged as hemodynamically appropriate for PCI according to the HT, the median expert human demonstrated 88.8% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.7% for AI (p < 0.0001 for noninferiority). On reproducibility testing, the HT opinion itself changed 1 in 10 times for both the appropriateness for PCI and the physiological PCI strategy. In contrast, AI showed no change. AI of iFR pressure-wire pull back data was noninferior to expert human interpretation in determining both the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI and the optimal physiological strategy for PCI. [Display omitted]