Artificial intelligence–powered software outperforms interventional cardiologists in assessment of IVUS-based stent optimization
Abstract
Background
Optimal stent deployment assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is associated with improved outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, IVUS remains underutilized due to its time-consuming analysis and reliance on operator expertise. AVVIGO™+, an FDA-approved artificial intelligence (AI) software, offers automated lesion assessment, but its performance for stent evaluation has not been thoroughly investigated.
Aim
To assess whether an artificial intelligence–powered software (AVVIGO™+) provides a superior evaluation of IVUS-based stent expansion index (%Stent expansion = Minimum Stent Area (MSA) / Distal reference lumen area) and geographic miss (i.e. >50 % plaque burden – PB - at stent edges) compared to the current gold standard method performed by interventional cardiologists (IC), defined as frame-by-frame visual assessment by interventional cardiologists, selecting the MSA and the reference frame with the largest lumen area within 5 mm of the stent edge, following expert consensus.
Methods
This retrospective study included 60 patients (47,997 IVUS frames) who underwent IVUS guided PCI, independently analyzed by IC and AVVIGO™+. Assessments included minimum stent area (MSA), stent expansion index, and PB at proximal and distal reference segments. For expansion, a threshold of 80 % was used to define suboptimal results. The time required for expansion analysis was recorded for both methods. Concordance, absolute and relative differences were evaluated.
Results
AVVIGO™ + consistently identified lower mean expansion (70.3 %) vs. IC (91.2 %), (p < 0.0001), primarily due to detecting frames with smaller MSA values (5.94 vs. 7.19 mm2, p = 0.0053). This led to 25 discordant cases in which AVVIGO™ + reported suboptimal expansion while IC classified the result as adequate. The analysis time was significantly shorter with AVVIGO™ + (0.76 ± 0.39 min) vs IC (1.89 ± 0.62 min) (p < 0.0001), representing a 59.7 % reduction. For geographic miss, AVVIGO™ + reported higher PB than IC at both distal (51.8 % vs. 43.0 %, p < 0.0001) and proximal (50.0 % vs. 43.0 %, p = 0.0083) segments. When applying the 50 % PB threshold, AVVIGO™ + identified PB ≥50 % not seen by IC in 12 cases (6 distal, 6 proximal).