Introduction: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is of diagnostic and prognostic value in a range of cardiopulmonary conditions. Current methods for evaluating CMR studies are laborious and time... Show moreIntroduction: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is of diagnostic and prognostic value in a range of cardiopulmonary conditions. Current methods for evaluating CMR studies are laborious and time-consuming, contributing to delays for patients. As the demand for CMR increases, there is a growing need to automate this process. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to CMR is promising, but the evaluation of these tools in clinical practice has been limited. This study assessed the clinical viability of an automatic tool for measuring cardiac volumes on CMR. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent CMR for any indication between January 2022 and October 2022 at a single tertiary centre were included prospectively. For each case, short-axis CMR images were segmented by the AI tool and manually to yield volume, mass and ejection fraction measurements for both ventricles. Automated and manual measurements were compared for agreement and the quality of the automated contours was assessed visually by cardiac radiologists. Results: 462 CMR studies were included. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between any automated and manual measurements (p > 0.05; independent T-test). Intraclass correlation coefficient and BlandAltman analysis showed excellent agreement across all metrics (ICC > 0.85). The automated contours were evaluated visually in 251 cases, with agreement or minor disagreement in 229 cases (91.2%) and failed segmentation in only a single case (0.4%). The AI tool was able to provide automated contours in under 90 s. Conclusions: Automated segmentation of both ventricles on CMR by an automatic tool shows excellent agreement with manual segmentation performed by CMR experts in a retrospective real-world clinical cohort. Implementation of the tool could improve the efficiency of CMR reporting and reduce delays between imaging and diagnosis. Show less
Background Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard technique to assess biventricular volumes and function, and is increasingly being considered as an end-point in clinical studies.... Show moreBackground Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard technique to assess biventricular volumes and function, and is increasingly being considered as an end-point in clinical studies. Currently, with the exception of right ventricular (RV) stroke volume and RV end-diastolic volume, there is only limited data on minimally important differences (MIDs) reported for CMR metrics. Our study aimed to identify MIDs for CMR metrics based on US Food and Drug Administration recommendations for a clinical outcome measure that should reflect how a patient “feels, functions or survives”. Methods Consecutive treatment-naïve patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) between 2010 and 2022 who had two CMR scans (at baseline prior to treatment and 12 months following treatment) were identified from the ASPIRE registry. All patients were followed up for 1 additional year after the second scan. For both scans, cardiac measurements were obtained from a validated fully automated segmentation tool. The MID in CMR metrics was determined using two distribution-based (0.5SD and minimal detectable change) and two anchor-based (change difference and generalised linear model regression) methods benchmarked to how a patient “feels” (emPHasis-10 quality of life questionnaire), “functions” (incremental shuttle walk test) or “survives” for 1-year mortality to changes in CMR measurements. Results 254 patients with PAH were included (mean±SD age 53±16 years, 79% female and 66% categorised as intermediate risk based on the 2022 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society risk score). We identified a 5% absolute increase in RV ejection fraction and a 17 mL decrease in RV end-diastolic or end-systolic volumes as the MIDs for improvement. Conversely, a 5% decrease in RV ejection fraction and a 10 mL increase in RV volumes were associated with worsening. Conclusions This study establishes clinically relevant CMR MIDs for how a patient “feels, functions or survives” in response to PAH treatment. These findings provide further support for the use of CMR as a clinically relevant clinical outcome measure and will aid trial size calculations for studies using CMR. Show less
BackgroundMeasurement of peak velocities is important in the evaluation of heart failure. This study compared the performance of automated 4D flow cardiac MRI (CMR) with traditional transthoracic... Show moreBackgroundMeasurement of peak velocities is important in the evaluation of heart failure. This study compared the performance of automated 4D flow cardiac MRI (CMR) with traditional transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTE) for the measurement of mitral inflow peak diastolic velocities.MethodsPatients with Doppler echocardiography and 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance data were included retrospectively. An established automated technique was used to segment the left ventricular transvalvular flow using short-axis cine stack of images. Peak mitral E-wave and peak mitral A-wave velocities were automatically derived using in-plane velocity maps of transvalvular flow. Additionally, we checked the agreement between peak mitral E-wave velocity derived by 4D flow CMR and Doppler echocardiography in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation (AF) separately.ResultsForty-eight patients were included (median age 69 years, IQR 63 to 76; 46% female). Data were split into three groups according to heart rhythm. The median peak E-wave mitral inflow velocity by automated 4D flow CMR was comparable with Doppler echocardiography in all patients (0.90 +/- 0.43 m/s vs 0.94 +/- 0.48 m/s, P = 0.132), sinus rhythm-only group (0.88 +/- 0.35 m/s vs 0.86 +/- 0.38 m/s, P = 0.54) and in AF-only group (1.33 +/- 0.56 m/s vs 1.18 +/- 0.47 m/s, P = 0.06). Peak A-wave mitral inflow velocity results had no significant difference between Doppler TTE and automated 4D flow CMR (0.81 +/- 0.44 m/s vs 0.81 +/- 0.53 m/s, P = 0.09) in all patients and sinus rhythm-only groups. Automated 4D flow CMR showed a significant correlation with TTE for measurement of peak E-wave in all patients group (r = 0.73, P < 0.001) and peak A-wave velocities (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between automated 4D flow CMR and TTE for peak-E wave velocity in sinus rhythm-only patients (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) and AF-only patients (r = 0.81, P = 0.014). Excellent intra-and inter-observer variability was demonstrated for both parameters.ConclusionAutomated dynamic peak mitral inflow diastolic velocity tracing using 4D flow CMR is comparable to Doppler echocardiography and has excellent repeatability for clinical use. However, 4D flow CMR can potentially underestimate peak velocity in patients with AF. Show less
Assadi, H.; Alabed, S.; Maiter, A.; Salehi, M.; Li, R.; Ripley, D.P.; ... ; Garg, P. 2022
Background and Objectives: Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) for outcome prediction has grown substantially in recent years. However, the prognostic role of AI using advanced cardiac... Show moreBackground and Objectives: Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) for outcome prediction has grown substantially in recent years. However, the prognostic role of AI using advanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) remains unclear. This systematic review assesses the existing literature on AI in CMR to predict outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. Materials and Methods: Medline and Embase were searched for studies published up to November 2021. Any study assessing outcome prediction using AI in CMR in patients with cardiovascular disease was eligible for inclusion. All studies were assessed for compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Results: A total of 5 studies were included, with a total of 3679 patients, with 225 deaths and 265 major adverse cardiovascular events. Three methods demonstrated high prognostic accuracy: (1) three-dimensional motion assessment model in pulmonary hypertension (hazard ratio (HR) 2.74, 95%CI 1.73-4.34, p < 0.001), (2) automated perfusion quantification in patients with coronary artery disease (HR 2.14, 95%CI 1.58-2.90, p < 0.001), and (3) automated volumetric, functional, and area assessment in patients with myocardial infarction (HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.92-0.96, p < 0.001). Conclusion: There is emerging evidence of the prognostic role of AI in predicting outcomes for three-dimensional motion assessment in pulmonary hypertension, ischaemia assessment by automated perfusion quantification, and automated functional assessment in myocardial infarction. Show less
Background: There has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation aiming to automate image analysis. However, advancement and... Show moreBackground: There has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation aiming to automate image analysis. However, advancement and clinical translation in this field depend on researchers presenting their work in a transparent and reproducible manner. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in AI studies involving CMR segmentation. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for AI CMR segmentation studies in April 2022. Any fully automated AI method for segmentation of cardiac chambers, myocardium or scar on CMR was considered for inclusion. For each study, compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) was assessed. The CLAIM criteria were grouped into study, dataset, model and performance description domains. Results: 209 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Studies were mainly published in technical journals (58%), with the majority (57%) published since 2019. Studies were from 37 different countries, with most from China (26%), the United States (18%) and the United Kingdom (11%). Short axis CMR images were most frequently used (70%), with the left ventricle the most commonly segmented cardiac structure (49%). Median compliance of studies with CLAIM was 67% (IQR 59-73%). Median compliance was highest for the model description domain (100%, IQR 80-100%) and lower for the study (71%, IQR 63-86%), dataset (63%, IQR 50-67%) and performance (60%, IQR 50-70%) description domains. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights important gaps in the literature of CMR studies using AI. We identified key items missing-most strikingly poor description of patients included in the training and validation of AI models and inadequate model failure analysis-that limit the transparency, reproducibility and hence validity of published AI studies. This review may support closer adherence to established frameworks for reporting standards and presents recommendations for improving the quality of reporting in this field. Show less
