The Prognostic Significance of Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion: An Artificial Intelligence-Based Approach Using Perfusion Mapping

Kristopher D Knott, Andreas Seraphim, Joao B Augusto, Hui Xue, Liza Chacko, Nay Aung, Steffen E Petersen, Jackie A Cooper, Charlotte Manisty, Anish N Bhuva, Tushar Kotecha, Christos V Bourantas, Rhodri H Davies, Louise A E Brown, Sven Plein, Marianna Fontana, Peter Kellman, James C Moon, Kristopher D Knott, Andreas Seraphim, Joao B Augusto, Hui Xue, Liza Chacko, Nay Aung, Steffen E Petersen, Jackie A Cooper, Charlotte Manisty, Anish N Bhuva, Tushar Kotecha, Christos V Bourantas, Rhodri H Davies, Louise A E Brown, Sven Plein, Marianna Fontana, Peter Kellman, James C Moon

Abstract

Background: Myocardial perfusion reflects the macro- and microvascular coronary circulation. Recent quantitation developments using cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion permit automated measurement clinically. We explored the prognostic significance of stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR, the ratio of stress to rest MBF).

Methods: A 2-center study of patients with both suspected and known coronary artery disease referred clinically for perfusion assessment. Image analysis was performed automatically using a novel artificial intelligence approach deriving global and regional stress and rest MBF and MPR. Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for comorbidities and cardiovascular magnetic resonance parameters sought associations of stress MBF and MPR with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, late (>90 day) revascularization, and death.

Results: A total of 1049 patients were included with a median follow-up of 605 (interquartile range, 464-814) days. There were 42 (4.0%) deaths and 188 MACE in 174 (16.6%) patients. Stress MBF and MPR were independently associated with both death and MACE. For each 1 mL·g-1·min-1 decrease in stress MBF, the adjusted hazard ratios for death and MACE were 1.93 (95% CI, 1.08-3.48, P=0.028) and 2.14 (95% CI, 1.58-2.90, P<0.0001), respectively, even after adjusting for age and comorbidity. For each 1 U decrease in MPR, the adjusted hazard ratios for death and MACE were 2.45 (95% CI, 1.42-4.24, P=0.001) and 1.74 (95% CI, 1.36-2.22, P<0.0001), respectively. In patients without regional perfusion defects on clinical read and no known macrovascular coronary artery disease (n=783), MPR remained independently associated with death and MACE, with stress MBF remaining associated with MACE only.

Conclusions: In patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease, reduced MBF and MPR measured automatically inline using artificial intelligence quantification of cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion mapping provides a strong, independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Keywords: cardiovascular magnetic resonance; cardiovascular outcomes; inline perfusion quantification; myocardial perfusion.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Automatic segmentation of the stress perfusion maps performed by machine learning with no user input. Base, mid, and apical left ventricle short axis slices (left to right) for a 76-year-old man with dyslipidemia and no death or major adverse cardiovascular events (A) and a 64-year-old woman with hypertension and atrial fibrillation who died within 24 months of the scan (B). Mean stress myocardial blood flow was 2.25 mL·g-1·min-1 in (A) and 1.52 mL·g-1·min-1 in (B).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Study flow chart. A total of 1049 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 143 patients met the exclusion criteria, there were reconstruction errors in perfusion maps in 15 cases, and there were 45 cases of inadequate stress (no splenic switch off). A total of 104 patients were lost to follow-up. There were 188 events in total (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) in 174 patients, including 42 deaths.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Kaplan-Meier survival estimate curves for stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). Stress MBF (A and B) and MPR (C and D). The red lines demonstrate the survival curves for the highest 50th percentile, and the blue lines demonstrate the lowest 50th percentile of patients. B and D, Magnified to highlight the separation of the curves. Rates of death are higher with impaired perfusion. Compared with patients in the highest 50th percentile, the patients in the lowest 50th percentile of MBF and MPR had higher rates of death (P=0.032 and P=0.01, respectively).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Kaplan-Meier survival estimate curves for stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). The Kaplan Meier survival estimate curves demonstrate major adverse cardiovascular events over time for stress MBF (A) and MPR (B). The red lines demonstrate the survival curves for the highest 50th percentile, and the blue lines demonstrate the lowest 50th percentile of patients. Compared with patients in the highest 50th percentile, the patients in the lowest 50th percentile of MBF and MPR had higher rates of death (P<0.001 for both).

References

    1. Finegold JA, Asaria P, Francis DP. Mortality from ischaemic heart disease by country, region, and age: statistics from World Health Organisation and United Nations. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:934–945. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.10.046.
    1. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, Prescott E, Storey R, Deaton C, Cuisset T, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2019;41:407–477. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425.
    1. Pepine CJ, Anderson RD, Sharaf BL, Reis SE, Smith KM, Handberg EM, Johnson BD, Sopko G, Bairey Merz CN. Coronary microvascular reactivity to adenosine predicts adverse outcome in women evaluated for suspected ischemia results from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute WISE (Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2825–2832. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.054.
    1. Ford TJ, Stanley B, Good R, Rocchiccioli P, McEntegart M, Watkins S, Eteiba H, Shaukat A, Lindsay M, Robertson K, et al. Stratified medical therapy using invasive coronary function testing in angina: the CorMicA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(23 p)(t A):2841–2855. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.006.
    1. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van’ t Veer M, Klauss V, Manoharan G, Engstrøm T, Oldroyd KG, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–224. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611.
    1. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PA, Piroth Z, Jagic N, Möbius-Winkler S, Rioufol G, Witt N, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205361.
    1. Arora N, Matheny ME, Sepke C, Resnic FS. A propensity analysis of the risk of vascular complications after cardiac catheterization procedures with the use of vascular closure devices. Am Heart J. 2007;153:606–611. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.12.014.
    1. Einstein AJ. Radiation risk from coronary artery disease imaging: how do different diagnostic tests compare? Heart. 2008;94:1519–1521. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.135731.
    1. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, Crijns HJ, Wildberger JE, Nagel E, Nelemans PJ, Schalla S. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719–1728. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.12.040.
    1. Herzog BA, Husmann L, Valenta I, Gaemperli O, Siegrist PT, Tay FM, Burkhard N, Wyss CA, Kaufmann PA. Long-term prognostic value of 13N-ammonia myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography added value of coronary flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.069.
    1. Murthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Hainer J, Gaber M, Di Carli G, Blankstein R, Dorbala S, Sitek A, Pencina MJ, et al. Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve. Circulation. 2011;124:2215–2224. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.050427.
    1. Taqueti VR, Solomon SD, Shah AM, Desai AS, Groarke JD, Osborne MT, Hainer J, Bibbo CF, Dorbala S, Blankstein R, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and future risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:840–849. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx721.
    1. Patel KK, Spertus JA, Chan PS, Sperry BW, Al Badarin F, Kennedy KF, Thompson RC, Case JA, McGhie AI, Bateman TM. Myocardial blood flow reserve assessed by positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging identifies patients with a survival benefit from early revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019:ehz389. [epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz389.
    1. Cecchi F, Olivotto I, Gistri R, Lorenzoni R, Chiriatti G, Camici PG. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1027–1035. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa025050.
    1. Hamon M, Fau G, Née G, Ehtisham J, Morello R, Hamon M. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:29. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-29.
    1. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, Brown JM, Nixon J, Everett CC, Bijsterveld P, Ridgway JP, Radjenovic A, Dickinson CJ, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453–460. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61335-4.
    1. Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, Bettencourt N, Shah AM, Hussain ST, Perera D, Plein S, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Paul M, et al. MR-INFORM Investigators. Magnetic resonance perfusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2418–2428. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716734.
    1. Kellman P, Hansen MS, Nielles-Vallespin S, Nickander J, Themudo R, Ugander M, Xue H. Myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance: optimized dual sequence and reconstruction for quantification. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19:43. doi: 10.1186/s12968-017-0355-5.
    1. Brown LAE, Onciul SC, Broadbent DA, Johnson K, Fent GJ, Foley JRJ, Garg P, Chew PG, Knott K, Dall’Armellina E, et al. Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20:48. doi: 10.1186/s12968-018-0462-y.
    1. Engblom H, Xue H, Akil S, Carlsson M, Hindorf C, Oddstig J, Hedeer F, Hansen MS, Aletras AH, Kellman P, et al. Fully quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion ready for clinical use: a comparison between cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19:78. doi: 10.1186/s12968-017-0388-9.
    1. Knott KD, Camaioni C, Ramasamy A, Augusto JA, Bhuva AN, Xue H, Manisty C, Hughes RK, Brown LAE, Amersey R, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease: a perfusion mapping study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;50:756–762. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26668.
    1. Kotecha T, Martinez-Naharro A, Boldrini M, Knight D, Hawkins P, Kalra S, Patel D, Coghlan G, Moon J, Plein S, et al. Automated pixel-wise quantitative myocardial perfusion mapping by CMR to detect obstructive coronary artery disease and coronary microvascular dysfunction: validation against invasive coronary physiology. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:1958–1969. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.022.
    1. Knott KD, Augusto JB, Nordin S, Kozor R, Camaioni C, Xue H, Hughes RK, Manisty C, Brown LAE, Kellman P, et al. Quantitative myocardial perfusion in Fabry disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:e008872. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.008872.
    1. Bhuva AN, Bai W, Lau C, Davies RH, Ye Y, Bulluck H, McAlindon E, Culotta V, Swoboda PP, Captur G, et al. A multicenter, scan-rescan, human and machine learning CMR study to test generalizability and precision in imaging biomarker analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:e009214. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009214.
    1. Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Flamm SD, Kim RJ, Nagel E Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Board of Trustees Task Force on Standardized Protocols. Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocols 2013 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:91. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-91.
    1. Manisty C, Ripley DP, Herrey AS, Captur G, Wong TC, Petersen SE, Plein S, Peebles C, Schelbert EB, Greenwood JP, et al. Splenic switch-off: a tool to assess stress adequacy in adenosine perfusion cardiac MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;276:732–740. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142059.
    1. Hosking A, Koulouroudias M, Zemrak F, Moon JC, Rossi A, Lee A, Barnes MR, Boubertakh R, Pugliese F, Manisty C, et al. Evaluation of splenic switch off in a tertiary imaging centre: validation and assessment of utility. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;18:1216–1221. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jew205.
    1. Gatehouse PD, Elkington AG, Ablitt NA, Yang GZ, Pennell DJ, Firmin DN. Accurate assessment of the arterial input function during high-dose myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:39–45. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20054.
    1. Christian TF, Rettmann DW, Aletras AH, Liao SL, Taylor JL, Balaban RS, Arai AE. Absolute myocardial perfusion in canines measured by using dual-bolus first-pass MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;232:677–684. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2323030573.
    1. Xue H, Davies RH, Brown LAE, Knott KD, Kotecha T, Fontana M, Plein S, Moon JC, Kellman P. Automated Inline Analysis of Myocardial Perfusion MRI with Deep Learning. 2019. Nov 2, .
    1. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993;80:27–38.
    1. Sammut EC, Villa ADM, Di Giovine G, Dancy L, Bosio F, Gibbs T, Jeyabraba S, Schwenke S, Williams SE, Marber M, et al. Prognostic value of quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:686–694. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.07.022.
    1. Gupta A, Taqueti VR, van de Hoef TP, Bajaj NS, Bravo PE, Murthy VL, Osborne MT, Seidelmann SB, Vita T, Bibbo CF, et al. Integrated noninvasive physiological assessment of coronary circulatory function and impact on cardiovascular mortality in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2017;136:2325–2336. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029992.
    1. De Bruyne B, Hersbach F, Pijls NH, Bartunek J, Bech JW, Heyndrickx GR, Gould KL, Wijns W. Abnormal epicardial coronary resistance in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis but “normal” coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001;104:2401–2406. doi: 10.1161/hc4501.099316.
    1. Ahn SG, Suh J, Hung OY, Lee HS, Bouchi YH, Zeng W, Gandhi R, Eshtehardi P, Gogas BD, Samady H. Discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve: insights from intracoronary imaging and physiological assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:999–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.006.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner