In silico comparison of two non-invasive pre-procedural virtual coronary revascularisation techniques for personalised cardiovascular medicine

IF 4.8 2区医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS

Computer methods and programs in biomedicine Pub Date : 2025-08-27 DOI:10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.109046

Mengzhe Lyu , Ryo Torii , Ce Liang , Qiaoqiao Li , Xifu Wang , Yiannis Ventikos , Duanduan Chen

{"title":"In silico comparison of two non-invasive pre-procedural virtual coronary revascularisation techniques for personalised cardiovascular medicine","authors":"Mengzhe Lyu , Ryo Torii , Ce Liang , Qiaoqiao Li , Xifu Wang , Yiannis Ventikos , Duanduan Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.109046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>Non-invasive pre-procedural prediction of post-PCI vessel morphology and CT angiography–derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) can inform coronary revascularisation planning. However, the capabilities of different CT-based virtual coronary revascularisation (VCR) techniques need further investigation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study compared two CT-based VCR techniques: a virtual coronary intervention (VCI) method and a radius correction (RC) method. The two techniques applied to 9 vessel cases were examined according to the accuracy of luminal cross-section area, luminal centreline curvature and predicted post-PCI CT-FFR. Post-PCI computed tomography angiography reference standard were used for further validation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The measured post-PCI cross-sectional area was 18.74 ± 4.30 mm<sup>2</sup>. The VCI-predicted area was 17.29 ± 3.48 mm<sup>2</sup> (mean difference: −1.45 ± 1.96 mm<sup>2</sup>; limits of agreement: −5.29 to 2.38), whereas the RC-predicted area was 9.42 ± 1.30 mm<sup>2</sup> (mean difference: −9.32 ± 3.78 mm<sup>2</sup>; limits of agreement: −16.72 to −1.92). The measured post-PCI centreline curvature was 0.16 ± 0.02 mm<sup>-1</sup>. VCI predicted 0.15 ± 0.04 mm⁻¹ (mean difference: −0.01 ± 0.05 mm⁻¹; limits of agreement: −0.12 to 0.09), whereas RC predicted 0.24 ± 0.07 mm⁻¹ (mean difference: 0.08 ± 0.07 mm⁻¹; limits of agreement: −0.05 to 0.21). The post-PCI CCTA-derived CT-FFR (functional reference) was 0.92 ± 0.09. VCI predicted 0.90 ± 0.08 (mean difference: −0.02 ± 0.03; limits of agreement: −0.08 to 0.04) and RC predicted 0.90 ± 0.06 (mean difference: −0.02 ± 0.05; limits of agreement: −0.12 to 0.09).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Both non-invasive, pre-procedural techniques showed good numerical agreement with computational post-PCI CT-FFR in this pilot cohort. However, the VCI method outperformed the RC method in predicting luminal cross-sectional area and luminal centreline curvature. The cross-sectional area of the stented vessel was underestimated, and the average curvature was overestimated in the RC method.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10624,"journal":{"name":"Computer methods and programs in biomedicine","volume":"272 ","pages":"Article 109046"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer methods and programs in biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169260725004638","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives

Non-invasive pre-procedural prediction of post-PCI vessel morphology and CT angiography–derived fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) can inform coronary revascularisation planning. However, the capabilities of different CT-based virtual coronary revascularisation (VCR) techniques need further investigation.

Methods

This study compared two CT-based VCR techniques: a virtual coronary intervention (VCI) method and a radius correction (RC) method. The two techniques applied to 9 vessel cases were examined according to the accuracy of luminal cross-section area, luminal centreline curvature and predicted post-PCI CT-FFR. Post-PCI computed tomography angiography reference standard were used for further validation.

Results

The measured post-PCI cross-sectional area was 18.74 ± 4.30 mm². The VCI-predicted area was 17.29 ± 3.48 mm² (mean difference: −1.45 ± 1.96 mm²; limits of agreement: −5.29 to 2.38), whereas the RC-predicted area was 9.42 ± 1.30 mm² (mean difference: −9.32 ± 3.78 mm²; limits of agreement: −16.72 to −1.92). The measured post-PCI centreline curvature was 0.16 ± 0.02 mm^-1. VCI predicted 0.15 ± 0.04 mm⁻¹ (mean difference: −0.01 ± 0.05 mm⁻¹; limits of agreement: −0.12 to 0.09), whereas RC predicted 0.24 ± 0.07 mm⁻¹ (mean difference: 0.08 ± 0.07 mm⁻¹; limits of agreement: −0.05 to 0.21). The post-PCI CCTA-derived CT-FFR (functional reference) was 0.92 ± 0.09. VCI predicted 0.90 ± 0.08 (mean difference: −0.02 ± 0.03; limits of agreement: −0.08 to 0.04) and RC predicted 0.90 ± 0.06 (mean difference: −0.02 ± 0.05; limits of agreement: −0.12 to 0.09).

Conclusions

Both non-invasive, pre-procedural techniques showed good numerical agreement with computational post-PCI CT-FFR in this pilot cohort. However, the VCI method outperformed the RC method in predicting luminal cross-sectional area and luminal centreline curvature. The cross-sectional area of the stented vessel was underestimated, and the average curvature was overestimated in the RC method.

查看原文本刊更多论文

个性化心血管医学中两种非侵入性术前虚拟冠状动脉血管重建术的计算机比较

背景和目的无创术前预测pci术后血管形态和CT血管造影衍生的分流储备（CT- ffr）可以为冠状动脉血运重建计划提供信息。然而，不同的基于ct的虚拟冠状动脉血管重建术（VCR）技术的能力需要进一步的研究。方法比较两种基于ct的VCR技术：虚拟冠状动脉介入治疗（VCI）方法和桡骨矫正（RC）方法。根据管腔横截面积、管腔中心线曲率和pci后CT-FFR预测的准确性，对应用于9例血管病例的两种技术进行检查。采用pci后计算机断层血管造影参考标准进一步验证。结果pci术后截面积为18.74±4.30 mm2。vci预测面积为17.29±3.48 mm2（平均差值：−1.45±1.96 mm2，一致性限：−5.29 ~ 2.38），而rc预测面积为9.42±1.30 mm2（平均差值：−9.32±3.78 mm2，一致性限：−16.72 ~−1.92）。pci术后测量的中线曲率为0.16±0.02 mm-1。VCI预测0.15±0.04毫米毒血症（平均差值：−0.01±0.05毫米毒血症；一致的范围：−0.12到0.09），而RC预测0.24±0.07毫米毒血症（平均差值：0.08±0.07毫米毒血症；一致的范围：−0.05到0.21）。pci术后ccta衍生CT-FFR（功能参考）为0.92±0.09。VCI预测0.90±0.08（平均差值：−0.02±0.03，一致限：−0.08 ~ 0.04），RC预测0.90±0.06（平均差值：−0.02±0.05，一致限：−0.12 ~ 0.09）。结论：在该试点队列中，两种非侵入性手术前技术与pci后CT-FFR的计算性数值一致。然而，VCI方法在预测管腔横截面积和管腔中心线曲率方面优于RC方法。在RC方法中，血管的横截面积被低估，平均曲率被高估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 工程技术-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

12.30

自引率

6.60%

发文量

601

审稿时长

135 days

期刊介绍： To encourage the development of formal computing methods, and their application in biomedical research and medical practice, by illustration of fundamental principles in biomedical informatics research; to stimulate basic research into application software design; to report the state of research of biomedical information processing projects; to report new computer methodologies applied in biomedical areas; the eventual distribution of demonstrable software to avoid duplication of effort; to provide a forum for discussion and improvement of existing software; to optimize contact between national organizations and regional user groups by promoting an international exchange of information on formal methods, standards and software in biomedicine. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine covers computing methodology and software systems derived from computing science for implementation in all aspects of biomedical research and medical practice. It is designed to serve: biochemists; biologists; geneticists; immunologists; neuroscientists; pharmacologists; toxicologists; clinicians; epidemiologists; psychiatrists; psychologists; cardiologists; chemists; (radio)physicists; computer scientists; programmers and systems analysts; biomedical, clinical, electrical and other engineers; teachers of medical informatics and users of educational software.