Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 15;37(6):1825–1837. doi: 10.1007/s10554-021-02162-x

Table 4.

Vessel-level analysis of the end-diastolic frame estimations of the 1st- and 2nd-analyst and of the CIB- and DL-methodology in the NIRS-IVUS sequences acquired at 15fps

Studied vessel Segmentation approach End-diastolic frames corresponding to ECG estimations End-diastolic frames not corresponding to ECG estimations Missed cardiac cycles P
All studied vessels 1st-analyst 1st estimation 2924 (90.4%) 68 (2.1%) 243 (7.5%)
1st-analyst 2nd estimation 2940 (90.9%) 66 (2.0%) 227 (7.0%)
2nd-analyst 3020 (93.2%) 72 (2.2%) 147 (4.5%)  < 0.001
CIB-methodology 3036 (90.1%) 202 (6.0%) 131 (3.9%)
DL-methodology 2993 (93.4%) 39 (1.2%) 174 (5.4%)
Left anterior descending artery 1st-analyst 1st estimation 1121 (93.5%) 17 (1.4%) 61 (5.1%)
1st-analyst 2nd estimation 1182 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
2nd-analyst 1121 (93.3%) 19 (1.6%) 61 (5.1%)  < 0.001
CIB-methodology 1111 (92.2%) 23 (1.9%) 71 (5.9%)
DL-methodology 1093 (91.6%) 11 (0.9%) 89 (7.5%)
Left circumflex artery 1st-analyst 1st estimation 887 (86.7%) 12 (1.2%) 124 (12.1%)
1st-analyst 2nd estimation 949 (89.8%) 46 (4.4%) 62 (5.9%)
2nd-analyst 965 (93.2%) 24 (2.3%) 46 (4.4%)  < 0.001
CIB-methodology 973 (90.4%) 65 (6.0%) 38 (3.5%)
DL-methodology 958 (94.0%) 8 (0.8%) 53 (5.2%)
Right coronary artery 1st-analyst 1st estimation 916 (90.4%) 39 (3.8%) 58 (5.7%)
1st-analyst 2nd estimation 809 (81.4%) 20 (2.0%) 165 (16.6%)
2nd-analyst 934 (93.1%) 29 (2.9%) 40 (4.0%)  < 0.001
CIB-methodology 952 (87.5%) 114 (10.5%) 28 (2.0%)
DL-methodology 942 (94.8%) 20 (2.0%) 32 (3.2%)

CIB conventional image-based, DL deep learning, ECG electrocardiogram