van Tongeren Olivier L R M, Vanmaele Alexander, Rastogi Vinamr, Hoeks Sanne E, Verhagen Hence J M, de Bruin Jorg L
Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Thorax Centre, Cardiovascular Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2025 Jan;69(1):61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.08.045. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
Surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is suboptimal due to limited compliance and relatively large variability in measurement methods of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac size after treatment. Measuring volume offers a more sensitive early indicator of aneurysm sac growth or regression and stability, but is more time consuming and thus less practical than measuring maximum diameter. This study evaluated the accuracy and consistency of the artificial intelligence (AI) driven software PRAEVAorta 2 and compared it with an established semi-automated segmentation method.
Post-EVAR aneurysm sac volumes measured by AI were compared with a semi-automated segmentation method (3mensio software) in patients with an infrarenal AAA, focusing on absolute aneurysm volume and volume evolution over time. The clinical impact of both methods was evaluated by categorising patients as showing either AAA sac regression, stabilisation, or growth comparing the 30 day and one year post-EVAR computed tomography angiography (CTA) images. Inter- and intra-method agreement were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Cohen's κ statistic.
Forty nine patients (98 CTA images) were analysed, after excluding 15 patients due to segmentation errors by AI owing to low quality CT scans. Aneurysm sac volume measurements showed excellent correlation (ICC = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88 - 0.99) with good to excellent correlation for volume evolution over time (ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 - 0.91). Categorisation of AAA sac evolution showed fair correlation (Cohen's κ = 0.33), with 12 discrepancies (24%) between methods. The intra-method agreement for the AI software demonstrated perfect consistency (bias = -0.01 cc), indicating that it is more reliable compared with the semi-automated method.
Despite some differences in AAA sac volume measurements, the highly consistent AI driven software accurately measured AAA sac volume evolution. AAA sac evolution classification appears to be more reliable than existing methods and may therefore improve risk stratification post-EVAR, and could facilitate AI driven personalised surveillance programmes. While high quality CTA images are crucial, considering radiation exposure is important, validating the software with non-contrast CT scans might reduce the radiation burden.
由于腹主动脉瘤(AAA)修复术后患者的依从性有限,且治疗后AAA瘤体大小测量方法的变异性相对较大,因此血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)后的监测并不理想。测量体积可提供动脉瘤瘤体生长、缩小或稳定的更敏感早期指标,但比测量最大直径更耗时,因此实用性较差。本研究评估了人工智能(AI)驱动的软件PRAEVAorta 2的准确性和一致性,并将其与既定的半自动分割方法进行比较。
在肾下AAA患者中,将AI测量的EVAR术后动脉瘤瘤体体积与半自动分割方法(3mensio软件)进行比较,重点关注绝对动脉瘤体积和随时间的体积变化。通过比较EVAR术后30天和1年的计算机断层扫描血管造影(CTA)图像,将患者分类为显示AAA瘤体缩小、稳定或生长,评估两种方法的临床影响。使用Bland-Altman分析、组内相关系数(ICC)和Cohen's κ统计量评估方法间和方法内的一致性。
排除15例因CT扫描质量低导致AI分割错误的患者后,对49例患者(98幅CTA图像)进行了分析。动脉瘤瘤体体积测量显示出极好的相关性(ICC = 0.94,95%置信区间[CI] 0.88 - 0.99),随时间的体积变化具有良好至极好的相关性(ICC = 0.85,95% CI 0.75 - 0.91)。AAA瘤体变化的分类显示出中等相关性(Cohen's κ = 0.33),两种方法之间有12处差异(24%)。AI软件的方法内一致性显示出完美的一致性(偏差 = -0.01 cc),表明与半自动方法相比,它更可靠。
尽管AAA瘤体体积测量存在一些差异,但高度一致的AI驱动软件准确测量了AAA瘤体体积变化。AAA瘤体变化分类似乎比现有方法更可靠,因此可能改善EVAR术后的风险分层,并有助于推动AI驱动的个性化监测方案。虽然高质量的CTA图像至关重要,但考虑到辐射暴露也很重要,用非增强CT扫描验证该软件可能会减轻辐射负担。