Cargando…

Comparison of prognostic value between CAD-RADS 1.0 and CAD-RADS 2.0 evaluated by convolutional neural networks based CCTA

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate the prognostic value of the novel coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) 2.0 compared with CAD-RADS 1.0 in patients with suspectedcoronary artery disease (CAD) evaluated by convolutional neural networks (CNN) based cor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Zengfa, Yang, Yang, Wang, Zheng, Hu, Yunting, Cao, Beibei, Li, Mei, Du, Xinyu, Wang, Xi, Li, Zuoqin, Wang, Wanpeng, Ding, Yi, Xiao, Jianwei, Hu, Yun, Wang, Xiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10195897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37215852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15988
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate the prognostic value of the novel coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) 2.0 compared with CAD-RADS 1.0 in patients with suspectedcoronary artery disease (CAD) evaluated by convolutional neural networks (CNN) based coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). METHODS: A total of 1796 consecutive inpatients with suspected CAD were evaluated by CCTA for CAD-RADS 1.0 and CAD-RADS 2.0 classifications. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox models were used to estimate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) inclusive of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). The C-statistic was used to assess the discriminatory ability of the two classifications. RESULTS: In total, 94 (5.2%) MACE occurred over the median follow-up of 45.25 months (interquartile range 43.53–46.63 months). The annualized MACE rate was 0.014 (95% CI: 0.011–0.017). Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicated that the CAD-RADS classification, segment involvement score (SIS) grade, and Computed Tomography Fractional Flow Reserve (CT-FFR) classification were all significantly associated with the increase in the cumulative MACE (all P < 0.001). CAD-RADS classification, SIS grade, and CT-FFR classification were significantly associated with endpoint in univariate and multivariate Cox analysis. CAD-RADS 2.0 showed a further incremental increase in the prognostic value in predicting MACE (c-statistic 0.702, 95% CI: 0.641–0.763, P = 0.047), compared with CAD-RADS 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: The novel CAD-RADS 2.0 evaluated by CNN-based CCTA showed higher prognostic value of MACE than CAD-RADS 1.0 in patients with suspected CAD.