Deep learning approach for cardiovascular disease risk stratification and survival analysis on a Canadian cohort

The quantification of carotid plaque has been routinely used to predict cardiovascular risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and coronary artery disease (CAD). To determine how well carotid plaque features predict the likelihood of CAD and cardiovascular (CV) events using deep learning (DL) and compare against the machine learning (ML) paradigm. The participants in this study consisted of 459 individuals who had undergone coronary angiography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, and focused carotid B-mode ultrasound. Each patient was tracked for thirty days. The measurements on these patients consisted of maximum plaque height (MPH), total plaque area (TPA), carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), and intraplaque neovascularization (IPN). CAD risk and CV event stratification were performed by applying eight types of DL-based models. Univariate and multivariate analysis was also conducted to predict the most significant risk predictors. The DL's model effectiveness was evaluated by the area-under-the-curve measurement while the CV event prediction was evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard model (CPHM) and compared against the DL-based concordance index (c-index). IPN showed a substantial ability to predict CV events (p < 0.0001). The best DL system improved by 21% (0.929 vs. 0.762) over the best ML system. DL-based CV event prediction showed a ~ 17% increase in DL-based c-index compared to the CPHM (0.86 vs. 0.73). CAD and CV incidents were linked to IPN and carotid imaging characteristics. For survival analysis and CAD prediction, the DL-based system performs superior to ML-based models.

Why selective screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is currently appropriate: a special report

INTRODUCTION

Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program.

AREAS COVERED

The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates.

EXPERT OPINION

Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS

BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear.

METHODS

Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response.

RESULTS

Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Polygenic Risk Score for Cardiovascular Diseases in Artificial Intelligence Paradigm: A Review

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) related mortality and morbidity heavily strain society. The relationship between external risk factors and our genetics have not been well established. It is widely acknowledged that environmental influence and individual behaviours play a significant role in CVD vulnerability, leading to the development of polygenic risk scores (PRS). We employed the PRISMA search method to locate pertinent research and literature to extensively review artificial intelligence (AI)-based PRS models for CVD risk prediction. Furthermore, we analyzed and compared conventional vs. AI-based solutions for PRS. We summarized the recent advances in our understanding of the use of AI-based PRS for risk prediction of CVD. Our study proposes three hypotheses: i) Multiple genetic variations and risk factors can be incorporated into AI-based PRS to improve the accuracy of CVD risk predicting. ii) AI-based PRS for CVD circumvents the drawbacks of conventional PRS calculators by incorporating a larger variety of genetic and non-genetic components, allowing for more precise and individualised risk estimations. iii) Using AI approaches, it is possible to significantly reduce the dimensionality of huge genomic datasets, resulting in more accurate and effective disease risk prediction models. Our study highlighted that the AI-PRS model outperformed traditional PRS calculators in predicting CVD risk. Furthermore, using AI-based methods to calculate PRS may increase the precision of risk predictions for CVD and have significant ramifications for individualized prevention and treatment plans.

A Pharmaceutical Paradigm for Cardiovascular Composite Risk Assessment Using Novel Radiogenomics Risk Predictors in Precision Explainable Artificial Intelligence Framework: Clinical Trial Tool

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is challenging to diagnose and treat since symptoms appear late during the progression of atherosclerosis. Conventional risk factors alone are not always sufficient to properly categorize at-risk patients, and clinical risk scores are inadequate in predicting cardiac events. Integrating genomic-based biomarkers (GBBM) found in plasma/serum samples with novel non-invasive radiomics-based biomarkers (RBBM) such as plaque area, plaque burden, and maximum plaque height can improve composite CVD risk prediction in the pharmaceutical paradigm. These biomarkers consider several pathways involved in the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis disease leading to CVD.

OBJECTIVE

This review proposes two hypotheses: (i) The composite biomarkers are strongly correlated and can be used to detect the severity of CVD/Stroke precisely, and (ii) an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)-based composite risk CVD/Stroke model with survival analysis using deep learning (DL) can predict in preventive, precision, and personalized (aiP3) framework benefiting the pharmaceutical paradigm.

METHOD

The PRISMA search technique resulted in 214 studies assessing composite biomarkers using radiogenomics for CVD/Stroke. The study presents a XAI model using AtheroEdgeTM 4.0 to determine the risk of CVD/Stroke in the pharmaceutical framework using the radiogenomics biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations suggest that the composite CVD risk biomarkers using radiogenomics provide a new dimension to CVD/Stroke risk assessment. The proposed review suggests a unique, unbiased, and XAI model based on AtheroEdgeTM 4.0 that can predict the composite risk of CVD/Stroke using radiogenomics in the pharmaceutical paradigm.

Why do guidelines recommend screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, but not for asymptomatic carotid stenosis? A plea for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines do not recommend screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS). The rationale behind this recommendation is that detection of AsxCS may lead to an unnecessary carotid intervention. In contrast, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is strongly recommended.

METHODS

A critical analysis of the literature was performed to evaluate the implications of detecting AsxCS.

RESULTS

Patients with AsxCS are at high risk for future stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. Population-wide screening for AsxCS should not be recommended. Additionally, screening of high-risk individuals for AsxCS with the purpose of identifying candidates for a carotid intervention is inappropriate. Instead, selective screening for AsxCS should be considered and should be viewed as an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and future cardiovascular events for the timely initiation of intensive medical therapy and risk factor modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Although mass screening should not be recommended, there are several arguments suggesting that selective screening for AsxCS should be considered. The rationale supporting such selective screening is to optimize risk factor control and to initiate intensive medical therapy for prevention of future cardiovascular events, rather than to identify candidates for an intervention.

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An International, multispecialty, expert review and position statement

OBJECTIVES

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies.

RESULTS

Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients <75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients.

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in 2021: The Jury is Still Out. An International, Multispecialty, Expert Review and Position Statement

OBJECTIVES

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies.

RESULTS

Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients < 75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients.

Management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may need to be individualized: a multidisciplinary call for action. Republication of J Stroke 2021;23:202-212

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g. silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient's life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Management of Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis May Need to Be Individualized: A Multidisciplinary Call for Action

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are <3% and the patient’s life expectancy is >5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Ultrasonographic characterization and identification of symptomatic carotid plaques

Carotid plaques are the main cause of neurological symptoms due to distal embolization or flow reduction. An objective classification of such lesions into symptomatic or asymptomatic is crucial for optimal treatment planning.