AI Based CMR Assessment of Biventricular Function: Clinical Significance of Intervendor Variability and Measurement Errors

The aim of this study was to determine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular mass (LVM) measurements made using 3 fully automated deep learning (DL) algorithms are accurate and interchangeable and can be used to classify...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JACC. Cardiovascular imaging 2022-03, Vol.15 (3), p.413-427
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Shuo, Patel, Hena, Miller, Tamari, Ameyaw, Keith, Narang, Akhil, Chauhan, Daksh, Anand, Simran, Anyanwu, Emeka, Besser, Stephanie A, Kawaji, Keigo, Liu, Xing-Peng, Lang, Roberto M, Mor-Avi, Victor, Patel, Amit R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of this study was to determine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular mass (LVM) measurements made using 3 fully automated deep learning (DL) algorithms are accurate and interchangeable and can be used to classify ventricular function and risk-stratify patients as accurately as an expert. Artificial intelligence is increasingly used to assess cardiac function and LVM from cardiac magnetic resonance images. Two hundred patients were identified from a registry of individuals who underwent vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance. LVEF, LVM, and RVEF were determined using 3 fully automated commercial DL algorithms and by a clinical expert (CLIN) using conventional methodology. Additionally, LVEF values were classified according to clinically important ranges: 10% error between CLIN and DL ejection fraction was present in 5% to 18% of cases for the left ventricle and 23% to 43% for the right ventricle. LVEF classification agreed with CLIN-LVEF classification in 86%, 80%, and 85% cases for the 3 DL-LVEF approaches. There were no differences among the 4 approaches in associations with major adverse cardiovascular events for LVEF, LVM, and RVEF. This study revealed good agreement between automated and expert-derived LVEF and similarly strong associations with outcomes, compared with an expert. However, the ability of these automated measurements to accurately classify left ventricular function for treatment decision remains limited. DL-LVM showed good agreement with CLIN-LVM. DL-RVEF approaches need further refinements.
ISSN:1876-7591
DOI:10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.08.011