Keeble_2019.pdf (634.11 kB)
Algorithmic Versus Expert Human Interpretation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Coronary Pressure-Wire Pull Back Data
journal contributionposted on 2023-07-26, 14:41 authored by Christopher M. Cook, Takayuki Warisawa, James P. Howard, Thomas R. Keeble, Juan F. Iglesias, Erick Schampaert, Ravinay Bhindi, Alphonse Ambrosia, Hitoshi Matsuo, Hidetaka Nishina, Yuetsu Kikuta, Yasutsugu Shiono, Masafumi Nakayama, Shunichi Doi, Manabu Takai, Sonoka Goto, Yohei Yakuta, Kenichi Karube, Yoshihiro J. Akashi, Gerald J. Clesham, Paul A. Kelly, John R. Davies, Grigoris V. Karamasis, Yoshiaki Kawase, Nicholas M. Robinson, Andrew S. P. Sharp, Javier Escaned, Justin E. Davies
Objectives 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. Background Interpretation of iFR pressure-wire pull back data can be complex and is subjective. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
Publication titleJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
- Published version