Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (Dec 2023)

Interrater variability of ML-based CT-FFR during TAVR-planning: influence of image quality and coronary artery calcifications

  • Robin F. Gohmann,
  • Robin F. Gohmann,
  • Adrian Schug,
  • Adrian Schug,
  • Konrad Pawelka,
  • Konrad Pawelka,
  • Patrick Seitz,
  • Nicolas Majunke,
  • Hamza El Hadi,
  • Linda Heiser,
  • Katharina Renatus,
  • Katharina Renatus,
  • Steffen Desch,
  • Sergey Leontyev,
  • Thilo Noack,
  • Philipp Kiefer,
  • Christian Krieghoff,
  • Christian Lücke,
  • Sebastian Ebel,
  • Sebastian Ebel,
  • Michael A. Borger,
  • Michael A. Borger,
  • Holger Thiele,
  • Holger Thiele,
  • Christoph Panknin,
  • Mohamed Abdel-Wahab,
  • Matthias Horn,
  • Matthias Gutberlet,
  • Matthias Gutberlet,
  • Matthias Gutberlet

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1301619
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10

Abstract

Read online

ObjectiveTo compare machine learning (ML)-based CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) in patients before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) by observers with differing training and to assess influencing factors.BackgroundCoronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) can effectively exclude CAD, e.g. prior to TAVR, but remains limited by its specificity. CT-FFR may mitigate this limitation also in patients prior to TAVR. While a high reliability of CT-FFR is presumed, little is known about the reproducibility of ML-based CT-FFR.MethodsConsecutive patients with obstructive CAD on cCTA were evaluated with ML-based CT-FFR by two observers. Categorization into hemodynamically significant CAD was compared against invasive coronary angiography. The influence of image quality and coronary artery calcium score (CAC) was examined.ResultsCT-FFR was successfully performed on 214/272 examinations by both observers. The median difference of CT-FFR between both observers was −0.05(−0.12-0.02) (p < 0.001). Differences showed an inverse correlation to the absolute CT-FFR values. Categorization into CAD was different in 37/214 examinations, resulting in net recategorization of Δ13 (13/214) examinations and a difference in accuracy of Δ6.1%. On patient level, correlation of absolute and categorized values was substantial (0.567 and 0.570, p < 0.001). Categorization into CAD showed no correlation to image quality or CAC (p > 0.13).ConclusionDifferences between CT-FFR values increased in values below the cut-off, having little clinical impact. Categorization into CAD differed in several patients, but ultimately only had a moderate influence on diagnostic accuracy. This was independent of image quality or CAC.

Keywords